"Ottomans" or "Turkey"?

[Depravo]

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

Also a UA where the duration and terms of a trade deal can be unilaterally rewritten on following turns.

 

[pgm123]

Also we do have a Khmer Empire in the game. I recognize that this the name of an ethnic group, not a dynasty like the Ottomans, but my point is that they’re the Khmer; not a Cambodian Civ.

That feels a bit different for a few reasons. Cambodia is an interesting name in that it is Sanskrit and once referred to an Indian tribe. It might even share a root with Cyrus's father Cambyses (Kambujiya). But quite recently, the government of Cambodia called itself Khmer.

 

[BenZL43]

I will prefer to have it called Turk. It's more general, and untied to any period of kingdom. After all, this is a Civilization game, not Kingdom or Dynasty game. All Ottoman are Turk. Seljuk are Turk. Modern Turkey are Turk. They could tie the bonuses to something generally Turkish and put leader from Ottoman Era (with Unique Leader Ability / Bonus from Ottoman Sultanate period). Next time, some other else could create Alp Arslan, still using that Turkish properties, with unique leader bonus/ability relayed to Seljuk Sultanate. Two birds in one stone.

First Look: (The) Turk

 

[PhilBowles]

The question I was answering too was strictly: ". I don't think it was called the Turkish Empire back then ". Nevertheless what you are commenting is already what the OP is discussing about: many names are probably not used only -either in time or in space- for the civ incarnation: see the flagrant case of India that was everything beyond persia - and in America, during an extended period of time - yet we use India to identify the group of civs in current India.

That's slightly different, though. "India" in Civ refers to all the kingdoms and empires whose borders lay within modern India (at least prior to the formation of Pakistan and Bangladesh as distinct states). Not only has Civ always treated the Ottomans as exactly the Ottoman period (in Western terminology) rather than a blob, but "Turkey" carries an expectation that the name would correspond to a component of the modern entity, not to a number of essentially unrelated states over a much broader geographic region.

Also we do have a Khmer Empire in the game. I recognize that this the name of an ethnic group, not a dynasty like the Ottomans, but my point is that they’re the Khmer; not a Cambodian Civ.

"Cambodian Empire" would be an anachronism - "Cambodia" is an Anglicised version of the French name for the country. "Khmer Empire" is the established English name for the medieval empire. There is also an almost exact correspondence between the ethnic group and the modern country - Cambodia is one of the most ethnically homogeneous countries in the world, with a nearly exclusively Khmer population, and aside from recent (as in, within the last half-century or so) expats, there are no significant Khmer enclaves outside modern Cambodia.

 

[Greywulf]

Turkey would be inclusive of the Ottoman Empire, and is even sometimes called the "Turkish Empire", so I'm completely cool with that.

 

[Bad Wolf]

Turks is also used to refer to a larger ethnic-linguistic group that dominated/dominates numerous independent premodern and modern states.

This.

Also "Turkey" is usually used to refer to the heartland of the Ottoman Turks, which corresponds to modern-day Turkey, as opposed to the whole Ottoman Empire.

 

[Depravo]

This.

Also "Turkey" is usually used to refer to the heartland of the Ottoman Turks, which corresponds to modern-day Turkey, as opposed to the whole Ottoman Empire.

That also applies to most historically expansionist cultures represented in Civ.

If you'd said 'Turkey' or the local variant to anyone who had heard of the Ottoman Empire from the 16th century through to 1918, they would know what you were talking about. Contemporary maps, at least in the English language, very rarely call the state anything other than Turkey, the Turkish Empire, 'Empire of the Great Turk' or some such.

 

[earlc]

Awesome thread. Having this level of conversation on forums, in 2018 no less, is really a gift.

I think Turkish Empire would be ideal. My biggest gripe with Ottoman Empire is that it really limits the Turkish culture, people and history to one series-recurring group from one period of history, and pretty much ensures that will be the only representation of them to ever be in the official game. Calling it the Turkish Empire would give a lot more flexibility, even if it's bordering on too ambiguous. The clearest analogue is China, though more centralized.

And I know of course that the Ottoman Empire spans centuries, but the late Ottoman genocides are a bit too recent in modern history and explicitly tied to that specific dynasty. This would be less of a statement if we didn't have any other valid name to call the game civ, but we do.

edit: that said, the young me was initially interested in the Ottoman Empire because of its specificity and because I had never heard of it before. So maybe there's something to be said about it being a learning opportunity to call the civ by this name.

 

[Krajzen]

I don't regret creating this thread, the discussion is great.

What I kinda regretted was not creating poll, as the debate is intelligent enough for me to be unable to see at a glance what option is preferred

So Iade very binary poll

 

[Guandao]

I think Firaxis will stick to the "Ottomans". "Turkey" makes me think of the 20th-21st centuries nation. I'm not in favor of that period of history being included in the Civ over the Ottoman period.

 

[Liufeng]

The real question is, in extenso, should we have a civilization that represents the turks in their fastuous period that was the Ottoman Empire, or should they include the broader history of the turks of Anatolia, since the Seljuks of Rum until modern Turkey ? As someone mentioned earlier : all turks are Ottomans, but all Ottomans are not turks. I maintain that I prefer the second choice, because I view history in longer terms than dynasties. Ottomans are certainly not Seljuks, but take a lot from them, just by the fact it were the Seljuks that "turkised" a very greek Anatolia. On the other end, modern Turkey is the successor of the Ottoman Empire in many aspects.
I believe the concept of civilization should be more about the people rather than a dynasty. Someone mentionned they called the empire from SE Asia "Khmer" and not Cambodia. But that strucks far less, because cambodian means a nationality, while Khmer means the people of that territory, their culture, their identity, etc. Also, cambodians, even nowdays call their country "Land of the Khmers".

 

[DeepKing]

I prefer Ottomans, but I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if we saw Turkey. We already have Australia, Brazil, and Scotland.

 

[Siesta Guru]

Turkish Empire or Turks would be my preferred option. Both Turkey and the Ottoman Empire are too connected to a specific time for my taste. It would also allow inclusion of Turks as a whole, not just those living in Turkey today or in the Ottoman empire in the past.

Also, while were in Anatolia, shout out to the Hittites, who we haven't seen since Civ 3.

 

[Ferocitus]

Ottomans, unless playing as Victoria, in which case "Johnny Turk".