"Ottomans" or "Turkey"?

[Krajzen]

One thing that I am always conflicted about in civ is whether a civ should be named Ottomans or Turkey.

I know Ottoman Empire was often called this, but it was also called "Turkey" "Turks"...
It is quite inconsistent, Ottos are the only civ named after a dynasty.

*Not Achaemenids but Persia (btw I am annoyed to no end how Persia is 100% Achaemenid as if it had no further 2000 years of history)
*Not Habsburgs but Austria
*Not Abbasids or Ayyubids but "Arabia" blob
*No Tang but China
*No Joseon but Korea
*No Yamato but Japan
*No "Holy Roman Empire" or "Prussia" but simply Germany
*No "Majapahit Empire" but Indonesia

Turning "Ottomans" into "Turkey" would also have another upside, it would allow to somehow implement Seljuks in the game - their empire conquered Middle East, fought Crusades and Georgia (!), crushed Byzantine forces double their size in battle of Manzikert, and has a badass leader of Alp Arslan.
As it is now, "Ottomans" somewhat limit Turks.

And they are incosistent!

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

It's been in the past 3 iterations of the series as Ottomans. I doubt they will change it now. But if they were just introducing it now, they would probably use the modern name.

 

[bonafide11]

I prefer the use of the Ottoman Empire.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I like Ottoman, but agree that with multiple leaders "Turks" would be more flexible. I don't think it will change though.

 

[Jewelrunna]

The historical period that will probably be reflected in the design is the Ottoman (I expect to see Suleiman or some other Ottoman caliph and Janissaries as a unique unit) rule over Turkey, so I’d prefer to see the Ottomans instead of a generic Turkey.

 

[Ever Adrift]

I like Ottoman, but agree that with multiple leaders "Turks" would be more flexible. I don't think it will change though.

Turks is also used to refer to a larger ethnic-linguistic group that dominated/dominates numerous independent premodern and modern states. Today alone, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaijan are all dominated by Turkic ethnic groups while significant numbers of people in Russia, Iran and China are as well. The Timurids, Seljuks, etc. were all Turkic or partially Turkic Empires in terms of linguistic roots; the question of whether these groups considered themselves 'Turkic' in the premodern era is questionable - but thats the case with virtually all ethnic groups and, especially, nations.

 

[Very Mad Max]

Ottoman of course. Turkish/turks is more of an ethnicity. Plus it would be pretty dumb to not have a nation who had so much power for over six to seven centuries.

 

[ViterboKnight]

Well, even if I'd prefer "Ottoman"....
Firaxis also changed "Vikings" to "Denmark" or "Sweden". It seems they prefer modern terms.
By the way, I'd rather use Vikings.... it's more meaningful... it makes more sense! It's just want we want it to represent: not the modern nation, but... well... vikings!

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Well, even if I'd prefer "Ottoman"....
Firaxis also changed "Vikings" to "Denmark" or "Sweden". It seems they prefer modern terms.
By the way, I'd rather use Vikings.... it's more meaningful... it makes more sense! It's just want we want it to represent: not the modern nation, but... well... vikings!

Viking was an occupation, not a kingdom or a culture. It's like having a plumber civ.

 

[Depravo]

Viking was an occupation, not a kingdom or a culture. It's like having a plumber civ.

I'd have gone with 'Norse'.

As for the OP's question, Turks definitely. 'Ottomans' can't be untangled from a dynasty and a particular form of government.

 

[Haig]

Not a big deal for me. Maybe if all the unique units and abilities are Ottoman-related then it's the Ottomans.

 

[jbavon]

Viking was an occupation, not a kingdom or a culture. It's like having a plumber civ.

I demand a plumber civ lead by Luigi.

(If only to rejoice in the 'why no Mario' threads that will follow)

 

[Uberfrog]

I can honestly say I don't mind which they go for, although I would personally prefer a civ design focussed on the Ottoman Empire, whatever they choose to call it.

As the OP rightly says, "Turkey" is more consistent, and is absolutely in line with what the Ottoman state was called in English throughout its existence. The Ottomans themselves may have preferred "The Ottoman Empire" (or more precisely "The Sublime Ottoman State" - Devlet-i Alîye-i Osmânîye), but then again Mehmed II would be quite happy for you to call him the Caesar of Rome (Kayser-i Rûm).

Firaxis also changed "Vikings" to "Denmark" or "Sweden". It seems they prefer modern terms.
By the way, I'd rather use Vikings.... it's more meaningful... it makes more sense! It's just want we want it to represent: not the modern nation, but... well... vikings!

It is a misconception that "Norway", either as a state or its name, is somehow a modern term. It has been called Norway (or at least Norþweg) in English all the way back to 880. Harald Hardrada certainly wouldn't be surprised to be told he was the ruler of a place by that name, at least by the Anglo-Saxons he hoped to add to his empire. The same applies to Denmark (or Danmark, as Harald Bluetooth - and indeed modern Danes - would prefer).

Just because there is a wide misconception about "Vikings", doesn't make it more meaningful.

 

[PhilBowles]

Ottoman is much more precise as a name for the period and geography represented. The modern usage of the name 'Turkey' doesn't correspond to consistent pre-20th Century uses of equivalent words (the Medieval Byzantine name referred to the Seijuks, for instance), and the Ottomans were described as an empire. Back when they were introduced Civ was at least a little better in using imperial names where appropriate, since the nation would be known in the game as the 'X Empire'.

Ottoman is also a widely-recognised name for pre-20th Century Turkey and its possessions in the Western world. The same is not true of Majapahit - the explicitly stated reason given by Firaxis that that name was not used - or Achaemenid. Civ V had multiple Hapsburg rulers, not just the Austrian leader. Germany, China and Japan have all encompassed multiple periods of those nations' histories - you won't find many HRE U-Boats, and I don't think Japan has ever corresponded to the Yamato period. It certainly doesn't in Civ VI, with its 16th-Century leader, samurai, electronics factory and an ability randomly named Meiji Restoration for no obvious reason.

Arabia's a blob but an awkward one to unblob and it does at least represent a coherent civilisation. Again, it doesn't correspond well to any specific dynasty.

Surely it would make it harder to represent Seijuks by calling the Ottomans 'Turkey', when they could simply have one civ named 'Ottomans' and one named 'Seijuks' if they want to represent that area?

Well, even if I'd prefer "Ottoman"....
Firaxis also changed "Vikings" to "Denmark" or "Sweden". It seems they prefer modern terms.

Demark was a contemporary name, and writers of the time often used the name "Danes" for the raiders we'd now call Vikings whether or not they came from Denmark specifically, since the majority who raided Western Europe did - they just preferred to 'unblob' the Vikings into one of their constituent nations. Sweden represented a different time period altogether.

 

[pgm123]

Ottoman of course. Turkish/turks is more of an ethnicity. Plus it would be pretty dumb to not have a nation who had so much power for over six to seven centuries.

Turks are an ethnicity, but so are the Persians, as OP outlined. The Ottoman Empire was called the Turkish Empire/Turkey by the west at times* and modern Turkey is an outgrowth of the Ottoman Empire. The specific ethnic group was the Oghuz Turks, who made up the Ottoman, Seljuk, Khwarazmian, Safavid, Qajar, and Pechenneg dynasties/groups. I don't think they will change it nor would I advocate for that, but I get why they could.

*Examples:

1627 - The Turkish Empire

1697 - Imperii Turcarum

1730:

1855 - Turkey in Asia:

 

[KAL_MAD]

Isn't that like saying Italy instead of Rome?

I prefer The Ottomans. I don't think it was called the Turkish Empire back then, but I'm not sure

 

[Thormodr]

Viking was an occupation, not a kingdom or a culture. It's like having a plumber civ.

I wouldn’t mind that. An automatic eureka for sanitation and free sewers everywhere. Not too shabby.

 

[clapyourhands]

I think Firaxis uses the name that is more relevant in how pop culture perceives the polity the civ represents.

We refer to the Persian empire, not the Iranian empire, when talking about anything before the modern era. But even when the Majapahit empire is represented, we call it Indonesia since Majapahit isn't exactly a household name even amongst casual fans. Ottoman/Turkey would be like the Persia/Iran example, where only one of them is consistently used to refer to the empire that the civ version traditionally represents.

 

[MaximusPlatypus]

It's patently ridiculous they aren't in the game yet; regardless of how they are named. I would like them under Mehmet 2 (I think) w/ a conquering flavor

 

[Josephias]

I prefer The Ottomans. I don't think it was called the Turkish Empire back then, but I'm not sure

Going by Spanish Golden Age literature, which mentions them quite a bit, I think they use the Turks or the Ottomans quite interchangeably... altough they probably use even more the Infidels... (As Phil would do )