Possible new leader for each civ

[BeyondCivilized]

Right but did Kemal 'create a new civilisation' when he took over? I think not.

Technically, the answer is yes.

Reason:

The ottoman empire was a multiethnic, religious empire, while modern Turkey is a national republic as laicistic as France.

My ancestors were Ottomans, and Arab Ottomans at that, but now we're Arab Lebanese. Actually the term Lebanese was invented by the West (Rome) and then re-used by the West again (France). So basically, I'm Phoenician, Arab, Ottoman, Persian( my home city is historically Persian apparently since it is listed among the Persian Empire; Tyre as well/Any CivIV Persian Expander would know that), and even Israeli (according to western history archives).

I think it is a matter of opinion, as in I consider myself an Arab. Hope I made any sense.

 

[Zongo]

Right but did Kemal 'create a new civilisation' when he took over?

As much as Bismarck did create a new civ when Prussia took over Germany. Or from another point of view, as much as the US getting away from England. Big territorial change, big ideological and iconological change, big socioeconomical change.

So I'd say yes, it is a new civ. It is another question altogher whether modern Turkey has proved itself "worthy" (yet) of being represented in Civ. The Ottoman Empire certainly did.

Still, it was under the Ottomans where the Turks had the peak of their power...

And it was under the Romans that the Italians had (so far) the peak of their power.
But nobody would consider Rome and Italy to be the same civ, right?

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

As much as Bismarck did create a new civ when Prussia took over Germany. Or from another point of view, as much as the US getting away from England. Big territorial change, big ideological and iconological change, big socioeconomical change.

So I'd say yes, it is a new civ. It is another question altogher whether modern Turkey has proved itself "worthy" (yet) of being represented in Civ. The Ottoman Empire certainly did.



And it was under the Romans that the Italians had (so far) the peak of their power.
But nobody would consider Rome and Italy to be the same civ, right?

I don't really consider any of that good criteria, especially considering it wasn't that big of a change. Prussia had already been dominant in geographical Germany for quite some time. Germany was also fairly backward and the major powers had always been fairly conservative. So, none there. And they all, including the Prussians and up until that point, the Austrians, identified as Germans culturally. It is a difficult question: if Prussia and Germany qualify as different civs(Austria is a fair bit easier to distinguish and argue for, as Prussia and Germany became indistinguishable politcally), does that also mean that Anglo-Saxon England and Norman England are different civilizations? Persia and Iran? Moors and Arabs? Manchuria and China?

 

[Depravo]

I don't really consider any of that good criteria, especially considering it wasn't that big of a change. Prussia had already been dominant in geographical Germany for quite some time. Germany was also fairly backward and the major powers had always been fairly conservative. So, none there. And they all, including the Prussians and up until that point, the Austrians, identified as Germans culturally. It is a difficult question: if Prussia and Germany qualify as different civs(Austria is a fair bit easier to distinguish and argue for, as Prussia and Germany became indistinguishable politcally), does that also mean that Anglo-Saxon England and Norman England are different civilizations? Persia and Iran? Moors and Arabs? Manchuria and China?

Absolutely. I can think of hundreds of other examples of violent political change with huge consequences on a state level but rarely do such upheavals lead to the end of a civilisation. That Stalin is a Russian leader in BTS together with Kate and Peter suggests the designers meant it the same way.

No, I wouldn't argue that Rome could represent modern Italy because there is no continuity. Roman power in Italy was finished in the C11 and the possibility of Italy as a unified state (and arguably as a distinct civilisation) doesn't reemerge until the C19. On the other hand there is an obvious cultural continuity from the Ottoman Empire to modern Turkey. There was massive institutional change but Turkey was hardly alone among her contemporaries at that.

At any rate the OE was more widely known as 'Turkey' anyway in its own day.

 

[Angst]

As much as Bismarck did create a new civ when Prussia took over Germany. Or from another point of view, as much as the US getting away from England. Big territorial change, big ideological and iconological change, big socioeconomical change.

So I'd say yes, it is a new civ. It is another question altogher whether modern Turkey has proved itself "worthy" (yet) of being represented in Civ. The Ottoman Empire certainly did.



And it was under the Romans that the Italians had (so far) the peak of their power.
But nobody would consider Rome and Italy to be the same civ, right?

Are you arguing for an inclusion of Italy?
You must get my point at some level. (Modern) Turkey is not important enough to be included, as well as modern Italy. I have no idea about the pre-Ottoman Turks (Who were nomads), but I'll much more approve an inclusion of the Seljuks fx. than renaming the Ottomans to represent modern Turkey.

 

[Zongo]

Are you arguing for an inclusion of Italy?
[...] (Modern) Turkey is not important enough to be included, as well as modern Italy.

Not at all. The question of importance is relative, but I am not arguing for the inclusion of neither.
My point was that Ataturk's Turkey is "a different civ" from the Ottoman Empire, so I would advise against renaming "Ottomans" into "Turkey".

I can think of hundreds of other examples of violent political change with huge consequences on a state level but rarely do such upheavals lead to the end of a civilisation [...] On the other hand there is an obvious cultural continuity from the Ottoman Empire to modern Turkey. There was massive institutional change but Turkey was hardly alone among her contemporaries at that.
At any rate the OE was more widely known as 'Turkey' anyway in its own day.

End of civilization is a bit rare, I agree. Exhaustion of a cycle and end of a civilization is more common. Formally Rome and Byzantium have no solution of discontinuity, but we acknowledge them as two civs because:
1) they occupied different, although overlapping, areas
2) the monotheism of the latter was unknown in the former
3) the multiculturalism of the former was not present in the latter, which would eventually become only greek

There are LOTS of civs coming and going, but not all of them strike it great and make it into Civ

As a small side note: in my country the Ottoman Empire was known as the "Ottoman Empire". There is a particular type of sofa which in my language bears the "ottoman" name, too - coming likely from there. Alternatively, we spoke of "The Turks". "Turkey" was not even used as a geographical definition, the options of choice being "Anatolia" for the peninsula and "Eastern Mediterranean" for the global domains.

I don't really consider any of that good criteria, especially considering it wasn't that big of a change.

I think Armenians, Greeks, Syrians, Lebanese and Kurds, between others, might disagree.
Greeks and Armenians were "epurated" - either killed (call it chaotic civil war or genocide, I am NOT making this point) or sent "home", that is, out of their ancestral lands, on exhausting marches toward newborn states which claimed the relative culture. Of course, there was a backlash against now-foreign turk communities, too.
Lebanese and Syrians were simply forgotten as non-Turks as well, but fortunately there were not that big mixed communities, so relatively less damage here.
Kurds got their own cultural identity simply negated.

It is a difficult question: if Prussia and Germany qualify as different civs(Austria is a fair bit easier to distinguish and argue for, as Prussia and Germany became indistinguishable politcally), does that also mean that Anglo-Saxon England and Norman England are different civilizations? Persia and Iran? Moors and Arabs? Manchuria and China?

Persia and Iran I'd say not, since the change was only political and religious. No change of territory or people. They did not refuse the cultural heritage of the past, like Turkey did.
Moors is a name used in Europe for the Arabs. I don't think THEY ever used it. So again, no.
The change between Anglo-Saxon England and Norman England was drastic so I'd say yes, there is a civilization change here. But I would not consider Anglo-Saxon England a civilization, just some barbarian fringe kingdom as the Visigoths in Spain. King Arthur is a later myth. I'd say that an independent English civilization worthy of this name begins precisely with the Normans.
Manchu were of course another civ with respect to China! They CONQUERED China, in fact. Afterwards they got assimilated, like the Mongols, by the more complex and vibrant chinese culture. In China, the Manchu dynasties are considered dynasties of invaders, not Chinese.

 

[Depravo]

Formally Rome and Byzantium have no solution of discontinuity, but we acknowledge them as two civs because:
1) they occupied different, although overlapping, areas
2) the monotheism of the latter was unknown in the former
3) the multiculturalism of the former was not present in the latter, which would eventually become only greek

I would argue the Byzantine empire grew more, not less multicultural as it declined.

The monotheism of Byzantium was clearly the result of a linear process that began when the Western Empire was still in being. Continuity.

That the Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire 'overlapped' is hardly a coincidence.

Persia and Iran I'd say not, since the change was only political and religious. No change of territory or people. They did not refuse the cultural heritage of the past, like Turkey did.

Let me get this right. Turkey going through a period of upheaval and reform is a 'civilisation change', but the near-extermination of Zoroastrian Persian culture and the Persian Empire itself by foreign invaders is not?

But I would not consider Anglo-Saxon England a civilization, just some barbarian fringe kingdom as the Visigoths in Spain. King Arthur is a later myth. I'd say that an independent English civilization worthy of this name begins precisely with the Normans.

Nonsense. Anglo-Saxon England was in 1066 the best-centralised kingdom of comparable size in northern Europe, and the early Normans actively tried to render themselves as the inheritors of Edward's legacy.

 

[BeyondCivilized]

At any rate the OE was more widely known as 'Turkey' anyway in its own day.

I beg to differ, the name Turkey or Turkce( or Turkeya in Arabic) are new, although the Ottomans were known as the Turks, the Anadul (sp?) was never known as Turkey until Ataturk came by. Also Istanbul is called "Asetana" in the Lebanese official history books for some reason, I'll guess I'll have to google it some time.

Calling Ottoman Turkey in Civ is like calling Arabia = Saudi Arabia, and Persia = Iran. It is wrong. It's also like calling the Aztecs = Mexico and the Zulu = Zimbabwe. Turkey and the Ottomans are too different entities.

 

[Depravo]

I beg to differ, the name Turkey or Turkce( or Turkeya in Arabic) are new, although the Ottomans were known as the Turks, the Anadul (sp?) was never known as Turkey until Ataturk came by. Also Istanbul is called "Asetana" in the Lebanese official history books for some reason, I'll guess I'll have to google it some time.

I don't know about Arabic, but Turkey was called by that name in English since at least the C16.

Calling Ottoman Turkey in Civ is like calling Arabia = Saudi Arabia, and Persia = Iran. It is wrong. It's also like calling the Aztecs = Mexico and the Zulu = Zimbabwe. Turkey and the Ottomans are too different entities.

No, it's the very opposite. It limits the wider Turkish civilisation to one period and one geographical area. Faith, having the Ottomans is exactly like having the Saudis in place of the Arabs.

 

[Zongo]

I would argue the Byzantine empire grew more, not less multicultural as it declined.

AFAIK, no.

The monotheism of Byzantium was clearly the result of a linear process that began when the Western Empire was still in being. Continuity.

If you had read my post instead of skimming through it for bits to fight, you would have noticed that I wrote about continuity, too. Nevertheless, they are two different civs. Between the Ottoman Empire and Turkey the change was even more abrupt.

Let me get this right. Turkey going through a period of upheaval and reform is a 'civilisation change', but the near-extermination of Zoroastrian Persian culture and the Persian Empire itself by foreign invaders is not?

I am afraid so. Fanaticism against minorities, although despicable everywhere, does not qualify for civ change in itself.

As for Turkey it was not simply reform. They lived it as a make-or-break defining moment, when Ataturk took a chance to grab the bits of what he felt as "Turkishness" and build them together in a new state modeled on the world powers of the moment, amidst the dissolution, corruption and foreign occupation of the decaying empire. He did so by crushing everything else in the path, be it religion, minorities, foreign influence or fellow Turks themselves.
Had he failed, Turkey would have been just one (or two) cardboard state more, artificially designed by western powers to carve up zone of influence in the middle east, run by dictators and rampant with dissatisfaction and riddled with fanaticism. You know the picture.
It is actually epic material: powerful characters neither black nor white, complex background, fall of empire. Love stories, too. Great movies can and will be made out of it, as soon as the Turks themselves steel their nerves and accept to look into the issue without ansiety.

Nonsense. Anglo-Saxon England was in 1066 the best-centralised kingdom of comparable size in northern Europe, and the early Normans actively tried to render themselves as the inheritors of Edward's legacy.

As an Englishman you are entitled your opinion, of course. But allow me to point out how Anglo-Saxon England:
1) did not raise great wonders
2) did not produce great works of art
3) did not influence other civs
4) did not discover new land
5) did not found religions
6) did get conquered easily by Vikings dipped in French culture
7) became for a century just the sub-empire of a french-speaking aristocracy loyal to the king of the other side of the Channel
8) ended up with a language which owes the biggest part of its words to French

 

[Zongo]

I beg to differ, the name Turkey or Turkce( or Turkeya in Arabic) are new, although the Ottomans were known as the Turks, the Anadul (sp?) was never known as Turkey until Ataturk came by.

Identical to what I said. I think the spelling you look for is "Anatolia", which is what was used in my country, too

 

[Depravo]

We're going to have to agree to disagree then, as this thread is spinning OT.

 

[Quildavyr]

Being a Turk depends...
Some people like me accept Ottoman and Byzantine people as patriarchs of todays Turkish citizens.(It is like to say modern Greece and Turkey have the same ethnic group with different languages and some differences cultural.Religion is not important.)
Some people accept Ottoman and Arabs/Kurds as patriarchs of todays turkish citizens.It depends on the Region you live.

After thinking a lot about the renaming OE to Turkey,I decided it would be useless.Generally people are ignoring both Ottoman and Byzantine Culture.(our people are trying to be different)

Anyway Atatürk must be addedIf a general from Carthage can be represented in the game,then Atatürk must too.He was a general of Ottoman army.

And about spelling Anatolia,we call it " Anadolu" or "Avrasya"(Eurasia).

 

[Angst]

^^ WIse post, and I agree.

 

[BeyondCivilized]

I don't know about Arabic, but Turkey was called by that name in English since at least the C16.

I knew it! Turkey is an invention of the west! But so is Lebanon... This proves that the so called "collective western empire" is never going to fall, might as well give it up you stupid Nationalist Arabs! heh Does that mean Turkey did not get it's name from the Bird? j/k

Identical to what I said. I think the spelling you look for is "Anatolia", which is what was used in my country, too

Yep that's the one, I probably should have checked Wikipedia before I made an ass of myself.

And about spelling Anatolia,we call it " Anadolu" or "Avrasya"(Eurasia).

We Arabs also call it (Assya Al Soghra) or "Mini Asia", but we're probably not the only one.

Also the majority of Arabs loathe Mustapha Kamal Ataturk, you know because he prefered the European Cultural elements over Arabic ones, that's the reason why you write in Latin Alphabets instead of Arabic(etc)Alphabets, and since he also transformed the Hagia Sophia into a museum. But then again Arab Nationalist Pride mostly has no foundation, and it is hanging by a thread.

 

[DennisIran]

So new leaders for Persia :

Reza Shah Pahlavi
Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi

one of the pahlavis should be in the game atleast.

Ismail I, Shah of Iran(Persia) and the founder of the Safavid dynasty

Ardashir I , ruler of Persia and the founder of the Sassanid dynasty

 

[Antilogic]

Please allow me to be the first to point out how, in this thread so far, there has been a rather strong agreement in not turning it into the Adolf thread.

If I understand well, a plurality of people here would merrily get rid of Stalin, Mao, Churchill, De Gaulle and Roosevelt, too. I personally second this.
We believe WW2 to be already overrepresented in game terms, and that most of these leaders were nothing special either, rather they just happened to be in charge in what the chinese wisdom calls "interesting times".
Your particular choice has the extra point of having been quite mad, too - scarcely a feature correlated with great leadership.

So, within the blessing of free speech and in acknowledgement of the tolerance and understanding that it requires, I warmly suggest you to take some time reading through the thread, if you did not do so yet.

I have friends!

Thanks. I did not really wanted Jackson in, though I would like Alexander Hamilton. The guy who was never president and that everybody loved to hate, but to whom most of the economical and political structure of the US is due. Nationalist, centralizer, aggressive, deviously clever and immensely ambitious.

I would live without Lincoln - yes, I know, everybody in the US love him and his stony face looks down from Mt. Rushmore, but he was a divisive, ill-advised sweet talker in the end. He hated the concept of central bank, and sleepwalked into a civil war! In his time, nobody had a great opinion of him. He got deified after the war and his death, somehow to "bury and enshrine" a past to be disposed of as fast as possible.

I don't get what you see in Teddy Roosevelt, beside imperialism and a sick love for propaganda. Care to explain?



If you are not happy with Maria Theresa, why not Metternich, the mastermind of the 1815 Vienna Congress?



No, we can't exclude the first of the Big Bad Guys

On Sargon, I've just decided to support the idea of giving Akkad its own civilization and letting Sargon be the leader. It means Babylon has two leaders (I have Hammurabi and Nebu), Sumeria one (Gilgamesh), and Akkad will have one.

I'm very much against the inclusion of Alexander Hamilton because he wasn't the head of the state, but I always figured Washington's Fin/Org traits sort of represented Hamilton's influence. I personally would like to see Washington's traits changed to Cha/Fin or Cha/Org, but those combos are in the game for other leaders already.

I don't understand your claim that Lincoln "sleepwalked" into a civil war. He was part of the Free Soil movement, which wanted to prohibit the expansion of slavery into new US territories and states. However, the steps that led to the Southern states leaving the union were well in place before the 1860 election. The Southern states actually began leaving the union just after the November elections, but Lincoln wasn't inaugurated until March 4th of 1861. Until that time, James Buchanan was officially the president, but took essentially no decisive action and allowed the country to dissolve. South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas all left the Union before Lincoln entered office. Lincoln comes in, realizes that worthless Buchanan did nothing, and then calls for troops to put down the rebellion. This causes Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee to join the revolt.

Lincoln, in my eyes, is worthy because his presidency determines the character of the US for the modern era (the Civil War can be seen in the economic terms of Industrialism vs. Agriculture), the fact that sheerly everything went wrong the moment he stepped into office largely because his predecessors ignored problems for too long, and despite being dealt such a bad hand, he still manages to re-unite the Union and offer very generous terms to end the conflict. He manages to prevent foreign intervention into the war, which may have guaranteed the existence of the rebel government. Granted, he is assassinated and then Reconstruction becomes that much more difficult, but it is to his credit that he oversaw the most bloody conflict involving American lives and managed to avoid the complete dissolution of the country.

Teddy Roosevelt is a good substitute for FDR, in my eyes, as a non-WW2 leader but still a relatively modern figure for the United States. Child labor laws, minimum wages, environmental/conservation actions like creating National Parks, industrial regulations such as the "Pure Food and Drug Act" and "Meat Inspection Act", the Panama Canal, using the American army in less developed countries to build infrastructure and distribute medicine, only president to also have won the Medal of Honor, also one of the first American Nobel Prize winners...these are just a few of the additional reasons to consider TR. He was militaristic, to say the least, and a bit of a blusterer, but he was also quite effective on the domestic front.

Babur is the founder of the Moghul empire, a muslim dominated but multicultural and tolerant union which is of tremendous importance for the history of India. Akbar was possibly the one who ruled the moghul empire at his peak.

I made a tragic slip-up in my list, I should have placed Akbar in India and Abbas I for Persia. Abbas I is the one who took Persia to new cultural heights, and who also shifted Persia to Shia Islam (most muslim countries are Sunni) which will have huge ripercussions in history.

I'll do some readings on those two names you mentioned, and then revise my listing for India. Right now, it's just the Civ4 listing...

 

[Quildavyr]

Also the majority of Arabs loathe Mustapha Kamal Ataturk, you know because he prefered the European Cultural elements over Arabic ones, that's the reason why you write in Latin Alphabets instead of Arabic(etc)Alphabets, and since he also transformed the Hagia Sophia into a museum. But then again Arab Nationalist Pride mostly has no foundation, and it is hanging by a thread.

If you get backstabbed,you would probably not like the backstabber.Arabs did it twice.(First Lawrence thing,second the Kurd Sheik revolt supported by Arabs,and this Revolt costed Turkey actually Mousul.The Oil too )
Arabs did not followed the Sultans Call(Caliph) for Jihad.

About the Arab Nationalist Pride in Turkey;I am not a nationalist and not an easterner too.I cant say something about the Arabic origin pride.But we have schools with the primary foreign language Arabic.We dont dislike Arabs.Almost the half of our women wears Turban.Arabic culture is not died here.

Writing in Latin Alphabets is much easier.And Hagia Sophias minaretts dont look good. Turning into a museum not a bad thing.We have an enourmous number by building Mosques after all.Fatih Mosque(Tomb of Mehmet 2 and Justinians too are there),Süleymaniye Mosque(Tomb of Suleiman is there) are much greater temples than Hagia Sophia.

And I am sorry for spamming this topic.

 

[Angst]

If you get backstabbed,you would probably not like the backstabber.Arabs did it twice.(First Lawrence thing,second the Kurd Sheik revolt supported by Arabs,and this Revolt costed Turkey actually Mousul.The Oil too )
Arabs did not followed the Sultans Call(Caliph) for Jihad.

About the Arab Nationalist Pride in Turkey;I am not a nationalist and not an easterner too.I cant say something about the Arabic origin pride.But we have schools with the primary foreign language Arabic.We dont dislike Arabs.Almost the half of our women wears Turban.Arabic culture is not died here.

Writing in Latin Alphabets is much easier.And Hagia Sophias minaretts dont look good. Turning into a museum not a bad thing.We have an enourmous number by building Mosques after all.Fatih Mosque(Tomb of Mehmet 2 and Justinians too are there),Süleymaniye Mosque(Tomb of Suleiman is there) are much greater temples than Hagia Sophia.

And I am sorry for spamming this topic.

I would not consider that spam, as it is creative and constructive writing in here, as well as intelligent and local views on a discussion regarding Ottomans/Turkey.

I would consider this spam.

 

[Luso]

The change between Anglo-Saxon England and Norman England was drastic so I'd say yes, there is a civilization change here. But I would not consider Anglo-Saxon England a civilization, just some barbarian fringe kingdom as the Visigoths in Spain.

Correction : the Visigodos wasn't in Spain,but in Iberia Peninsula and South of France.