Light In The East: Civs Of The Orient(And Beyond)

[Tarmont]

If anything, merge them both as "Qoyunlu" and there will be a little more material to work with. Then if you need an unique unit, you could call it either Black Sheep or White Sheep. SHEEPS FOR EVERYONE.

And umm, these excerpts from wikipedia could serve as inspiration for their design:

The Bayandurs behaved like statesmen rather than warlords and gained the support of the merchant and feudal classes of South Caucasus (present day Azerbaijan).

Despite internal fighting amongst Kara Yusuf's descendants after his death in 1420, and the increasing threat of the Timurids, the Black Sheep Turkomans maintained a strong grip over the areas they controlled.

 

[FaohKi]

They might be short lived but were extremely influencing Sultanates. Today, the region they ruled are almost same, many empires rise and fall in same region but people are culturally almost same with AQ and QQ people.

Btw, what about Eretnids? They were successors of Il-khanate in Anatolia. They were Mongol-Karluk(Uyghur) and Turkoman mix.

And, that little Khanate defeated the Ottomans in a battle and killed Crowned Prince of Ottomans in 1392. Even Entire Europe couldn't defeat Ottomans in 1396. After Eretnid-Ottoman war, they also sacked some Ottoman cities in Anatolia. But Eretnids did that to warn Ottomans, not try to destroy them. It's a long story.

 

[janboruta]

Ssoon.

Spoiler :

 

[regalman]

That thing is a beast!

 

[Hoop Thrower]

Just when I was finishing my game with the Sassanids...

 

[FaohKi]

Ssoon.

Spoiler :

Those borders are not real, it's a fan map. Sassanids never ever ruled a single city in Anatolia. They just reached to Asian side of Constantinople and when their alliance with Avars ended they just returned to wherever they came.

The guy who drew that map (Not talking about your map but borders of the map) probably thinks, if an army move somewhere, those lands automatically becomes their.

Arabs, besieged Constantinople twice, conquered Thessaloniki sacked it and left, they took numberless towns, cities in central and western Anatolia but did you see any maps that shows Thessaloniki, Amorium etc. as Abbasid lands?

But don't think this is a criticism about your drawing skill, that map looks literally badass but borders in that map -which comes from another guy and he probably knows nothing about history- isn't realistic at all.

So, my suggestion is try another map which is more historically correct. E.g Like this

Btw, If I sound rude, please accept my apologies, because I didn't mean to be.

Regards.

 

[Tarmont]

snip

That was under the reign of Khosrau II, he conquered Egypt, Syria and parts of anatolia. Yes, he didn't rule them for long but that doesn't mean that he didn't rule them at all.

 

[FaohKi]

No, he didn't rule a single city in Anatolia. He just reached Bithynia (Eastern shores of Constantinople) because Byzantines had no army to resist. Sassanids came and allied with Avars but Byzantine politics defeated them extremely fast, even without fight. And Sassanids just turned back. Egypt is different. Yes, they entered Egypt to conquer it but not same for Anatolia.

 

[janboruta]

The point of the map was to show the Persian gains during their last war against Rome. Lands in Anatolia are meant to represent the army marching towards Constantinople. Nothing more, nothing less. I dismissed other maps, that claimed that Khosrau conquered the entirety of Anatolia and even Cyprus.

 

[regalman]

Buddy, Khosrau 2 did capture that area. plain and simple like wiki is.

 

[Viregel]

No, he didn't rule a single city in Anatolia. He just reached Bithynia (Eastern shores of Constantinople) because Byzantines had no army to resist. Sassanids came and allied with Avars but Byzantine politics defeated them extremely fast, even without fight. And Sassanids just turned back. Egypt is different. Yes, they entered Egypt to conquer it but not same for Anatolia.

That's exactly what the map shows. If the Byzantines had no army to resist, and the Sassanid army was in that area, then it seems to me that's essentially Sassanid territory.

 

[Hoop Thrower]

Also, it seems that area is in a different shade of pink for that reason too.

Oh, I can't wait to being able to play 10 Persia games, are these Sassanids meant to be compatible with DJS's?

 

[regalman]

Wut? JFD no into Sassanids!

 

[Hoop Thrower]

Fixed, damn, too many modders who're recognize by 3 letter initials...

 

[FaohKi]

That's exactly what the map shows. If the Byzantines had no army to resist, and the Sassanid army was in that area, then it seems to me that's essentially Sassanid territory.

So, Ottoman army moved into Germany and Eastern and Southern France during Franco-Turkish alliance and Germans didn't send any army to face Turks. Then, they signed a treaty to leave all captured lands back to France. In this position, part of Germany and France was Turkish lands?

This isn't how war works. You have to appoint a governor to the city and then you can claim the ownership of the land. That's simple, no?

 

[regalman]

Also, it seems that area is in a different shade of pink for that reason too.

Oh, I can't wait to being able to play 10 Persia games, are these Sassanids meant to be compatible with DJS's?

They should be, the xml tags will be different. As for the uniques, the Sassanids have the Iwan as a UI, and the UU is Savaran, but can be changed to Azadan.

Also, difference was that the Franco-Ottoman alliance was an alliance, where as the Sassanians occupied Anatolia in a very unfriendly way.

 

[FaohKi]

Also, difference was that the Franco-Ottoman alliance was an alliance, where as the Sassanians occupied Anatolia in a very unfriendly way.

Ottomans operated in German lands and actually permanently gained the territories and gave to France. But I never met any historians claim that the lands Ottomans moved were belong to Turks.

Same for Sassanids. There isn't any historian who says Anatolia -Sassanid route to Chalcedon/Bithynia (sorry but lmao)- was belong to Sassanids. There wasn't a single map which shows Sassanid route in Anatolia as part of Sassanid Empire until a few years ago. Probably an Iranian nationalist drew that map and it became popular among Iranians. I know very well that Iranians are extremely active on Wikipedia. So, any page related to Iran on Wikipedia is not reliable, written by ultra nationalist iranians. They even show Farrokh as sources lol.

Edit: I posted my first post just for the info to support modders with more historical accuracy but seems like that wasn't good to correct the mistake -or at least trying- So, you can ignore my posts and stay at topic.

Regards.

 

[Viregel]

So, Ottoman army moved into Germany and Eastern and Southern France during Franco-Turkish alliance and Germans didn't send any army to face Turks. Then, they signed a treaty to leave all captured lands back to France. In this position, part of Germany and France was Turkish lands?

This isn't how war works. You have to appoint a governor to the city and then you can claim the ownership of the land. That's simple, no?

I'd disagree - towards the end of the Second World War, there were large swathes of land under Allied control that likely weren't governed. Open border treaties are different, and in this case, they explicitly allowed military access. My point is that if you're the only one with any degree of control over a piece of land, then yes, you own it. Governors can be appointed later; there's nothing to stop the land by being ruled directly from the central government, which is more or less what's happening here.

Still, it's not really worth arguing about, seeing as the map is excellent already. Historians disagree over a lot if borders, so I don't think it's a huge issue even if you think it's inaccurate.

 

[Zantonius Hamm]

In the end we all have to remember it's just a video game.

 

[FaohKi]

In the end we all have to remember it's just a video game.

You're right sir. We shouldn't be harsh to each other, it's just a game

Like I said, it's better to end this meaningless conversation.

Peace