It should be "TURKS", not OTTOMANS

Ok, I agree with some points , and disagree with others.

First, I agree the Ottoman empires falls under the Muslim Empire, and it was great from a military standpoint, but if we are going to bother with changing they there should be a Muslim empire with arabs / turks, but no turks seperately. I realize it existed before becoming the muslim/ottoman empire, but its highpoints were when it became/joined the islamic empire (which sort of happened in 751 AD during the Abbasid dynasty). Second, though the turks have their history, I'd say personally the highlight (as in the time of greatness) is when they fell under the Ottoman. Sure you had the Gokturk Empire, but its not as recognized as the Ottomans due to history being eurocentric, so tough one there. The Ottoman empire imo should not even be seperate, I think Arabs and Ottomans should be put together in one empire, the Muslim Empire, yes its a bit more general but I think overall thats how it was seen, the ottomans I believe saw themselves as muslims more than turks, and so did the arabs."It is to be noted that the Ottoman Empire never recognised a Turkish or any other ethnicity but divided its population by religion"- Wikipedia.

Also , if we really want to go into specifics , then the egyptians shouldn't speak arabic right ? They should speak egyptian (ancient egyptian if its possible). Also, the Arabs shouldn't exist since there are subdivisions and seperate cultures. Egyptians should be on their own, and Iraqis, and Bedouin, see where im going ? But that wouldn't happen since they were most important together. I think Egypt has the right to be on its own because of its contribution overall, and because its more common. In a more specific and a world audience game then there would be many many more empires, though less important ones. The muslim empire would also be on its own, no ottomans and arabs or other subdivisions.

I agree Attaturk was a great leader, but there are many people who deserve heads and don't get them. And to be honest I'd say there are also other empires that might be more deserving than the Turks, like the Byzantines, maybe Babylonians too.

Now, America doesn't have much culture, sorry guys, but considering you've only had around 220 years (Independence in 1780s or late 70s I think) you can't be blamed. But to be honest you can't compare your selves to the Muslims, Persians , Romans, Greeks, Chinese, or any others really. I mean, the Muslim empire had Andalusia for 800 years ! Thats more than four times the time you had in America, unless you'll count the native americans as part of your culture. The Muslim empire lasted a good 1000+ years as well. Thought you've made contributions, they are small in the span of history. This isn't to say you shouldn't be in the game, you are the strongest empire now, but considering you've had say... 80 years, its not saying much. Someone made a point about being the strongest, 80 years is nothing in world history. Plus, like my brother Minci (assuming hes muslim) here said the Ottomans at their time were a world power, capable of attacking even Vienna and taking Constantinople. Still, America deserves to be in game as the world power in current time, whether it holds true in 1000 years is a different story, but America MUST be in game now.

Anyway the game is a game, its aimed at a western audience so they pick what is common, thought tbh I don't really know why the Zulu and Malinese are there. Btw, your point about the ottomans being a strong is true, but in terms of size I believe they fall behind the Abbasids and the Ummayids. And the islamic golden age does not include the ottoman empire (from around 700 ad to 1400). Plus, Civ is a western game and tends to give less importance to Asian cultures , due to its Eurocentric perspective, emphasizing the Roman and Greek Empires.

Still fun tho.

EDIT: wow, didn't think I wrote that much.
 
It can be accepted that the Turks are an ethnicity, and the Ottomans are the most well-known incarnation of that group. However, are the Carthaginians called 'Punics'? Technically, they are an incarnation of the Phonecian people as much as the Ottomans are an incarnation of the Turks.

So the Ottomans are the Civilization, the Turks are the race. I think this is most of what needs to be said, at least while keeping on topic.
 
civilopedia said:
"Ottomans are turkish tribe..."
Click to expand...

I think, you, Minci, have Turks in the game... pls read that article, as a matter a fact, that is a great resourse for learning about other nations... and leaders
 
I agree. It was the Turk empire (sultanate) that raided ICELAND. I mean ICELAND! An island in the middle of nowhere..But that's not the reason they should be in.
The Turks conquered Istanbul - ruled the Balkans and North-Africa (correct me if I'm wrong). Were the greatest muslim medieval power - greater than many European empires. And..yeah :)
You're right ;)

And while we are at it. I want to rename Vikings into Scandinavia! :)


Edit: so many are saying Turks are the race but Ottomans are the civ. Arabia is a civ :confused: Carthage is a civ also. They are not Punics. Arabians are not divided into Kurdish, Lebanese etc.. So the Turks shouldn't also!
 
yeah I got the idea but I think - since Genghis Khan and Kublai Khan are the leader - that Mongolia should be...just Mongolia. "The Golden Horde" Mongolia, not the Mongolians that built Samarkand, which is - I know - one of the remarks of Islamic artistic history...and stuff :)
 
HolyOne said:
I was approached the other day by a turk guy in a different thread. He said we (Magyars) are turks. I said no and given evidence to my statement. He swept it from the table by saying something that was absolutely nonsense, had he read at least the first sentence of the link I gave. When I pointed this out, no answer came.]
Click to expand...
The Magyars, of course, are Huns. There is a reason why the name of the country in English is HUNgaria. So there is a certain consistency in the argument of our two Turkish friends. Magyars are Huns and Huns are Turkish so...

However, there is little evidence at all about where your people came from. The language belongs to the Finno-Ugric family, which suggests an Russian or Siberian origin. This is about all the evidence we have. However, the idea of a westward wandering from Mongolia or China is firmly implanted in the popular mind without much evidence to back it up. The Turkish thesis is, if anything, even less likely.
 
blitzkrieg1980 said:
Hmmm... well, I'll concede to this, if you can provide some sort of credible source. I've never heard that before in any of my classes or in any books I've read, so if you could please provide a link to a credible source, I'd appreciate the knowledge. Thanks!
Click to expand...
Sad comment on the state of the American education, isn't it? The fact is that the Soviets won WWII almost single-handedly and they did so before Pearl Harbor. When the Nazis failed to reach either of their main objectives (Moscow and the Caucasian oil fields) before the snow flew in 1941, the war was over. All that was left was the clean up.

And find your own sources. The Wikipedia is a good starting point as this is simply history. You might start by looking up the Battle of Kursk, which I am sure you have never heard of - even though it was by far the largest tank battle in the history of the world.
 
Abegweit said:
The Magyars, of course, are Huns. There is a reason why the name of the country in English is HUNgaria. So there is a certain consistency in the argument of our two Turkish friends. Magyars are Huns and Huns are Turkish so...

However, there is little evidence at all about where your people came from. The language belongs to the Finno-Ugric family, which suggests an Russian or Siberian origin. This is about all the evidence we have. However, the idea of a westward wandering from Mongolia or China is firmly implanted in the popular mind without much evidence to back it up. The Turkish thesis is, if anything, even less likely.
Click to expand...
There may be consistency, but that is entirely false.
Hungary is named Hungary after the Huns, of course. This is a name from an ethnic group that stayed on a geographic location. So Hungarian is a group of people living in the geographic location of Hungary, no matter of ethnic origin. Of course it isn't used in this sense in everyday speech, but that doesn't change the fact.
We are Magyars, which is the name of the ethnic group of people (living wherever on Earth). We call our country Magyarország (Magyar Land). This name is based on the ethnic group that inhabits the area. Hungary and Magyarország have absolutely no connection to each other, other than both signal the same geographic location. Only English and a few other languages use the Hun based name. The Croatians, for example call us Madarska. This is based on the ethic group too. So, although the English were too lazy to come up with a correct name, it doesn't mean that we have anything to do with the Huns ;)

Although there are popular (folklore) legends about Magyars and Huns. The one of the "Wonderous Deer" leading the two symbolic brother Magyar and Hunor to a Promised Land (Hungary). The other is the story of Prince Csaba (son of Attila) who, after the fall of the Hun empire set out east for the Magyars, while leaving behind the Székelys to guard Attila's legacy (Hungary) until they return. He swear an oath that they will return if the Székelys are attacked, which happens after a few centuries. Then Csaba and his warriors rode down from the sky, defeat the enemies and ride back, while the horse-shoes setting sparks. That is our own little story of the Milky Way :)
But these legends have even less evidence than other theories. They were probably made up because of the Huns fearsome reputation. It certainly demands respect if you are a cousin of those people who almost destroyed the world ;) (They too doesn't mention anything about the Hun-Turk relation.)

There are many theories about our origin. An extreme one, usually supported by political radicals states that we are sumerians :lol: :lol:
The Finn-Ugric theory is also much debated, but also the most accepted and backed up with the most convincing pieces of evidence. I'm not a linguist to argue with it, although I'm pretty satisfied with this theory (and its pieces of evidence) and accept it as the most likely one.
 
Of course they mean the same people! But that doesn't mean that the actual words, linguistically mean the same thing. The every-day use further complicates this. Magyar and Hungarian points to the same person, from a different approach. I pointed out that difference. I'm not a linguist, as I said, I read about this somewhere on wikipedia.
 
Abegweit said:
Sad comment on the state of the American education, isn't it? The fact is that the Soviets won WWII almost single-handedly and they did so before Pearl Harbor. When the Nazis failed to reach either of their main objectives (Moscow and the Caucasian oil fields) before the snow flew in 1941, the war was over. All that was left was the clean up.
Click to expand...
Even if every single german soldier was killed by soviet hands, the above is too simplistic. The allies kept vast resources of the nazi war machine occupied, keeping them from being sent to the eastern front.

In addition, you're forgetting the Pacific and Asian conflicts entirely. China and England/India did their share, as well as did the US.

The Russian/Japanese "front" was non-existent. I'm not sure they even declared war on each other.

Wodan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Lonecat Nekophrodite
  • Locked
Constantinople / Istanbul in Civ7
4 5 6
Replies
100
Views
7K
leif erikson
leif erikson
Z
historical mod
Replies
8
Views
2K
Dracosolon
D
A
1.16 Paragon/Normal Speed UHV Strategies
2 3
Replies
41
Views
13K
Andrrew
A
need my speed
The Exalted Ottoman Earth
Replies
10
Views
3K
need my speed
need my speed
r16
  • Locked
oh , Macmaster's Arc or the Turkish-American War
Replies
4
Views
620
Arakhor
Arakhor
Top Bottom