New Firaxis tweet about turkey/Byzantium

[Eagle Pursuit]

To be honest, the only requirements for a Civ/Empire/Nation to be incluided in the game seem to be:

-Recognizable leader
-Interesting Uniques

While Romans and Ottomans seem more appropiate to Civilization than Italy and Turkey, there is no way we can rule out, or justify, the inclusion/exclusion of any Civ.

We've seen Civ V vanilla without Spain, which means the second language with most natives, and the original culture that now permeates all of south and central america was discarded in favour of, for example, the Iroquois.

I trust the developers cand find a good balance between historical and modern empires, and mayor/minor civilizations. The goal is to have different strategies, uniques and gameplay possibilities.

Well said. All the bickering in this thread won't change what comes in Civ 6 at all. It may affect the DLC/expansions or Civ 7, but nothing now.

 

[FaohKi]

Best Turkish soldiers were the Janissaries, which were predominantly Christian boys, captured in young age and after years of tough/thorough military training unleashed on their own people.

Best Turkish soldiers were Sipahis not Janissaries. And they were not christians they were Muslims. They were taking kids from christian families and converting them to Islam.

Here is a ss from a book about Sipahis and Janissaries.


Sipahis were also mostly Slavic in the Balkans and there were christian Sipahis as well (There were no christian Janissary AT ALL). I'm also a Slav and I'm proud to call myself part of this great nation. Vive la Turquie!

Centuries later, the glorious Turks killed millions of innocent Armenian civilians, only because they refused to convert from Christianity to Islam.

Turks NEVER EVER killed people because not converting to Islam. You have no idea about Palace policy. Sultan always wanted to keep christians population as christian because they were paying more taxes. That's why Muslims in the Empire always criticized Ottoman policy. Lol where do you people read these bs lmao.

I could go on about the glorious reign of the Ottomans.

We just read what you know about Ottomans. You better don't show yourself funny to people anymore... lol

Edit: Actually, you can go on for more. Please do it, let's have some good laughs kek.

Edit 2:


Moderator Action: As noted above, please leave discussion of whether or not the Armenian genocide occurred to the World History forum. It has no place in the game forums.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Cristoval]

America is in the game for commercial reasons. It would be commercial suicide for Firaxis not to include an American civ. That said, as the dominant power on the planet now, America does deserve it's place in the game (as already stated in original post). However China is now poised to overtake America as the world's major power and in 1000 years its a safe bet that Americas inclusion in civ will be marginal at best.

Germany for most of its history was rather like Greece before. Lots of cultural/artistic/philosophical achievements without hard power. Only Hitler of any German leader had much of an empire and probably you would agree we dont want him in the game. I'd include Germany for similar reasons to Greece but it's hardly a historically dominant civ.

I stick to my original 20 civs but America and Germany would be the most vulnerable of those in historical terms (possibly Japan or France). The other 16 surely have to be included.

I disagree. The US is in the game because civ is not just about ancient civs.

 

[cakes]

yep, no point conflating civilization with empire or even dominance

 

[Depravo]

I only wish they'd ditch the name 'Ottomans' in favour of 'Turks'.

We don't have a Tang or Valois civ for a reason.

 

[FaohKi]

I only wish they'd ditch the name 'Ottomans' in favour of 'Turks'.

We don't have a Tang or Valois civ for a reason.

That would be excellent actually. In that way, they might add something from Seljuqs or even Göktürks (Celestial Turks, the first Turkish dynasty) not just Ottomans.

But Ottomans were something unique in entire human history. So, don't think they change the name.

 

[inthesomeday]

I only wish they'd ditch the name 'Ottomans' in favour of 'Turks'.

We don't have a Tang or Valois civ for a reason.

I would agree with this on almost any other situation-- IE, replacing "Rome" with Italy or something of the sort, maybe Latins-- but the issue with this is that "Turks" represent a massive ethnic group that spread across all of Central Asia and established dynasties over many other civilizations represented elsewhere in the game, such as India and Persia. Maybe you could call it specifically the Turkish civilization (whereas "Turks" is Turkic) because I agree the Ottomans are more of a period-specific manifestation of the polity/culture, but Turks is a bit too broad.

 

[nunor]

I would agree with this on almost any other situation-- IE, replacing "Rome" with Italy or something of the sort, maybe Latins-- but the issue with this is that "Turks" represent a massive ethnic group that spread across all of Central Asia and established dynasties over many other civilizations represented elsewhere in the game, such as India and Persia. Maybe you could call it specifically the Turkish civilization (whereas "Turks" is Turkic) because I agree the Ottomans are more of a period-specific manifestation of the polity/culture, but Turks is a bit too broad.

I don't understand why they don't just call it Turkey, as they do with Germany and almost everyone else.

 

[x2Madda]

I disagree. The US is in the game because civ is not just about ancient civs.

I think we can all agree that America is in the game because the game is made in America. Most people who make video games include some nod to their own country, whether directly or indirectly. Sometimes without even meaning too.

On that note, civ is a GAME. I know it is based on history but thread after thread their is always that one person, that one voice that mentions how historically inaccurate something within the game, is and therefore should be changed.

I would welcome more modern world civs, it was nice seeing Brazil make its debut in civ5 and I would welcome Canada in the future. We did after all get the CN tower in Civ5 BNW.

Canada vs the Romans? Sure, why not.
As for the tweet itself, I am in agreement that it might be nothing, or it might hint at a new scenario. I welcome the return of scenarios even if I personally dislike them.

As for the Ottomans and Byzantium inclusion...We had Denmark & Sweden as seperate entities and then the "Norwegian" ski infantry!

 

[FaohKi]

I would agree with this on almost any other situation-- IE, replacing "Rome" with Italy or something of the sort, maybe Latins-- but the issue with this is that "Turks" represent a massive ethnic group that spread across all of Central Asia and established dynasties over many other civilizations represented elsewhere in the game, such as India and Persia. Maybe you could call it specifically the Turkish civilization (whereas "Turks" is Turkic) because I agree the Ottomans are more of a period-specific manifestation of the polity/culture, but Turks is a bit too broad.

That's correct. From Yakutia to Gagauzia they're all Turks. historical Turkic states are numerous. From Göktürks to Timurids, Mughals to Ottomans, Kipchaks to Bulgars, Mamluks to Khwarezmians... Well, one doesn't simply count them all lol. They're all called themselves as "Turk" and spoke Turkic languages.

 

[Depravo]

I agree that 'Turks' is a very broad brush for what represents a small part of their historic range (personally I'd love to see at least one civ based in central Asia, perhaps a Turkic one) but 'Turkey' too heavily implies the post-1923 state.

'Turks' would take in this, the Ottomans, beyliks and the Rum Seljuks - but unfortunately could imply a lot more besides. Still, I think it's better than an Ottoman civ. Sure, it had some interesting quirks due to its unique historic and geographical circumstances, but so did, for example, the Qing, and nobody's asking for a civ called that.

 

[Hakan-i Cihan]

I disagree that the Ottomans should be taken out in favor of Turks. The game is called civilization and not "ethnicity" for a reason. The different turkic empires where not the same culturally. Especially early turkic empires had a culture around Tengriism. While later ones adopted Islam and the culture changed along. Also the influence of other neighbouring cultures were different to each Turkic empire as they were spread over a large geography. Compare the Ottomans, the Khazars, the Kharakanids, the (Volga) Bulgars, the Uygurs, the Delhi Sultanate and I can go on...

But if there is need to combine similar turkic empires then I suggest to combine Turkey, the Ottoman empire and the Anatolian Seljuks (Sultanate of Rum) and call them Anatolian Turks. I do think that another Turkic empire should be included too from Central Asia in an expansion. Besides were they not intending to distribute the civilization more properly for TSL. In all civ iterations until now Central Asia was pretty empty.

 

[FaohKi]

I disagree that the Ottomans should be taken out in favor of Turks. The game is called civilization and not "ethnicity" for a reason. The different turkic empires where not the same culturally. Especially early turkic empires had a culture around Tengriism. While later ones adopted Islam and the culture changed along. Also the influence of other neighbouring cultures were different to each Turkic empire as they were spread over a large geography. Compare the Ottomans, the Khazars, the Kharakanids, the (Volga) Bulgars, the Uygurs, the Delhi Sultanate and I can go on...

But if there is need to combine similar turkic empires then I suggest to combine Turkey, the Ottoman empire and the Anatolian Seljuks (Sultanate of Rum) and call them Anatolian Turks. I do think that another Turkic empire should be included too from Central Asia in an expansion. Besides were they not intending to distribute the civilization more properly for TSL. In all civ iterations until now Central Asia was pretty empty.

Well, I'm ok with both Ottoman and Turk. But, I have to disagree with that. Turk is not an ethnicity but nationality. I'm a Turk. Because I speak Turkish. "Turk" means "Strong" if anyone wants to join "Strongs" they can. Ethnic background doesn't change anything. You think all Turks in Anatolia are really Turks from East Asia? If you speak Turkish language, you're a Turk. I know many western europeans who living in Turkey and their kids all speaking Turkish as native language. They're all counting as Turks, no matter from where they came. Some of them Scottish, some French...

Don't know if you ever read, Ibn Fadlan's stories. When he met Khazars he said something about them " And there is people, call themselves Turks... they are like this, like that... and he adds ...They take you as their own, if you speak their language" Well, this is still same in Turkish community. Speak Turkish and you're a Turk.

Also, when Turks arrived Anatolia, their number were around 600,000 and population of Anatolia around 6,000,000 (Greeks and Hellenized Anatolians)

During the Imperial Era, over 1,500,000 Western European brought into the Empire as slaves. (the region where I'm from is famous with Northern European, -yes, Scandinavian- y-dna. all of them full blondies and redheads with grey eyes lol. and if you tell them "you're not Turk" they would come after you for insulting )

2,500,000 Ukrainians, Polish and Russians taken as slaves by Tatars and brought into Empire

I'm not counting renegades and new timar holders (Sipahis) who brought from Hungary and Austria and other central European countries to Anatolia.

Now, mix them all. Ta-daa! Turks here!