Renaming Civs?

[Angst]

I know a lot of people want Civs like Ottoman Empire and Viking Empire renamed to Turkish Empire and Scandinavian Empire.

Is that really necessary? I mean, the Turkish age-of-prime was when they were Ottomans, while it's the same with the Vikings, at least at the international influental level. And also, if the Vikings were to be renamed to Scandinavian Empire, their representative leader should be Ragnar (And that's too little representation for Scandinavian leaders.. What about Margaret and Gustav?)

 

[Thedrin]

My ideal list of civs contains the Hapsburg, not the Austrians or the Spanish. So I agree with the Ottomanns being in the game.

I've only a passing knowledge of Scandinavian history, but I'm not aware of any civilization, nation, government, or ruling family called the Vikings. As far as I'm aware this name was only given to the sea raiders that based themselves in Scandinavia. So I'd agree with changing the name.

 

[Traitorfish]

My ideal list of civs contains the Hapsburg, not the Austrians or the Spanish.

But "Ottoman" doesn't just refer to the dynasty, but to the ethnic group, just as "Han" refers to both a dynasty and ethnic group within China. It means those Turks living in the former Ottoman empire, specifically modern Turkey. "Hapsburg", by comparison, only refers an historical aristocratic family.

 

[Depravo]

'Ottoman' doesn't describe any ethnic group that I've heard of. Just that one, phenomenally successful clan line.

The game is called 'Civilization' not 'Dynasty Manager'. I was distraught when Warlords went once again for 'Ottomans' over Turks. Even their contemporaries called them Turks. And nobody would consider having Tudor, Romanov or Valois civilisations.

 

[Thedrin]

I just assumed that Ottoman empire refered to a dynasty or government name. If it refers to a specific ethnic group then that's my error. If Ottomann refers to all, or the vast majority, of modern Turks then why would anyone want the name changed? If it only refers to a small section of modern Turks then I return to the Hapsburg case - highlighting it as an extreme example of the acceptable (to me) practice of naming civs after their leaders rather than the people who followed.

 

[Traitorfish]

'Ottoman' doesn't describe any ethnic group that I've heard of. Just that one, phenomenally successful clan line.

Well, I've been told that it is also a valid, if fairly uncommon name for an ethnic group. I may have been wrong.
I mean, I do agree that "Turkish Empire" would be better, I'm just saying that "Ottoman" is more valid than "Hapsburg"

 

[TheLastOne36]

Scandinavia is better then Vikings because it talks about the Vikings, Medieval Sweden, Medieval Denmark-Norway, Finland, Sweden in the 1700's and modern day Scandinavia.

 

[Thedrin]

TraitorFish:
I'm just saying that "Ottoman" is more valid than "Hapsburg"

I suspect then that you misread my initial post. I was using the fact that I had no problem with the Hapsburgs being in the game to show that I had no problem with the Ottomanns being in the game.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, maybe I did misunderstand, but my point was that they aren't directly comparable- Ottoman has a wider meaning that Hapsburg.

 

[Firefight]

I rename England and call myself Great Britain

 

[Dnomal]

The Ottoman empire should remain as the Ottoman empire specifically BECAUSE it dosen't represent a ethnic group, we're not talking about ethnic nation states here, we're talking about multi-ethinic empires with a variety of different races and customs. E.g in the Ottoman empire, Greeks ran the civil service (or at least disproportiantely dominated it), Christians and non-Turks composed the elite Janissaries etc.

Contemporary rivals may have called the Otoman Empire a/the Turkish Empire, but no one called Byzantium Byzantium in it's 1,000 year history, it's a modern term (19th cent).

Furthermore Historians, call it the Ottoman Empire and it's there job, many of whom have studied it for years, centuries even. Renaming civs is a job for Historians who spend their lives studying, not games designers.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

The Ottoman empire should remain as the Ottoman empire specifically BECAUSE it dosen't represent a ethnic group

Except that it does represent an ethnic group. The names of the cities are all Turkish; almost all of the cities in their list are in Turkey. The language the units use is Turkish, and everything else about their civ is Turkish. The only argument you have to go on is the Janissaries as UU, but may I draw your attention to the Dutch Swiss Mercenary and Carthaginian Numidian Mercenary in CivIII? UU means nothing.

And of course, I have to remind you that the Janissaries were raised to consider themselves Turkish.

Long story short: "Ottomans" for "Turks": Abominable. Especially because it mangles the language (what's the short form of "Ottoman Empire?") Rename it to the Turks now, and next expack, add Atatürk to seal the deal.

 

[Depravo]

Contemporary rivals may have called the Otoman Empire a/the Turkish Empire, but no one called Byzantium Byzantium in it's 1,000 year history, it's a modern term (19th cent).

Byzantium isn't a dynastic label.

I happen to believe it shouldn't have been included, and in any case am one of the freaks who refer to it as the Roman Empire all the way to 1453.

Furthermore Historians, call it the Ottoman Empire and it's there job, many of whom have studied it for years, centuries even. Renaming civs is a job for Historians who spend their lives studying, not games designers.

I'm not trying to get the Ottoman Empire post-emptively renamed I just believe if we are to have a Turkish CIV in the game it makes little sense to name it after a ruling family that ruled some Turks for some of history. IMO a civilisation should represent a 'culture-sphere', not a state, and certainly not a single dynasty.

It certainly is the job of a designer of games of this sort to make these decisions, and Civ has never been shy to make historical judgments - sometimes ludicrous ones.

Lockesdonkey may be onto something with Ataturk. We need more modern leaders.

 

[Pascal Nouma]

The Ottoman empire should remain as the Ottoman empire specifically BECAUSE it dosen't represent a ethnic group, we're not talking about ethnic nation states here, we're talking about multi-ethinic empires with a variety of different races and customs.

Acording to you we should call Persians to Achaemenid Empire ,Greeks to Macedonian Empire ,Arabs to Ayyubid Empire ,Russia to CCCP (for Stalin) etc.

Ottoman Empire at its height includes lots of nations(One hundred nations descend upon you! )But empire created by Turks at anatolia and led by them.Of course vassal states of Ottoman Empire had important role in military , goverment but it wont be fair for Turks to not included at Civ 4.We have a large history that cant be limited as Ottomans.

And meaning of ottoman (osmanl&#305 is land with lots of people named Osman .Same as Seljuq (Selçulku).Ottoman is not an ethnic group.

 

[Saim]

Byzantium isn't a dynastic label.

I happen to believe it shouldn't have been included, and in any case am one of the freaks who refer to it as the Roman Empire all the way to 1453.



I'm not trying to get the Ottoman Empire post-emptively renamed I just believe if we are to have a Turkish CIV in the game it makes little sense to name it after a ruling family that ruled some Turks for some of history. IMO a civilisation should represent a 'culture-sphere', not a state, and certainly not a single dynasty.

It certainly is the job of a designer of games of this sort to make these decisions, and Civ has never been shy to make historical judgments - sometimes ludicrous ones.

Lockesdonkey may be onto something with Ataturk. We need more modern leaders.

No. We. Don't. There's, like, 5 modern leaders, more than any other century.

I do agree with renaming the Ottomans though.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

No. We. Don't. There's, like, 5 modern leaders, more than any other century.

There's a reason for that. More stuff happens in one day in the 21st century than happened in whole months and years in the 1st.

 

[Paideia]

There's a reason for that. More stuff happens in one day in the 21st century than happened in whole months and years in the 1st.

I.. don't quite know how to respond to that.. I knew, that a lack of historical knowledge/perspective was one of the major curses of the modern world, in which most people can't remember past the last fashion fad/hit band/Hollywood blockbuster, but I honestly believed it would be different among fans of a game like Civilization.
Have you read a history book? The world as we know it didn't just magically appear out of nothing in 1918, you know. May I, as a mere start, refer you to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_century.

EDIT: For further comment, try googling my signature...

 

[Saim]

Exactly. The first century was big.

I think the definition 'modern' isn't really helpful either. This is what I would say:

Ancient-Medieval-Renaissance-Industrial-Information(Current)-Space(Future)

There's a reason for that. More stuff happens in one day in the 21st century than happened in whole months and years in the 1st.

Wha.... wh... I didn't think anything could top some of the reasent posts on this board in terms of ignorance (Boudica being added because she's female and Mongols and Chinese not having any more important leaders come to mind), but you have blown me away.

 

[johny smith]

Why don't we have option to rename our civ? So we will not have this argument. Well at least the option to change it yourself so you can alleviate some things that bother you.

Why can't we make custom civs through the game? Instead of using a mod of course. Like select your model, traits, building, unit, and civic.

 

[Dnomal]

You can rename a civ to anything in personal details, but custom mods would be good, perhaps choosing from regional group, e.g Middle East then selecting or making your own UUs or UBs.

"Acording to you we should call Persians to Achaemenid Empire ,Greeks to Macedonian Empire ,Arabs to Ayyubid Empire ,Russia to CCCP (for Stalin) etc.
"

I never said that, the Ottomans were unique because they didn't have one overarching culture or traditions, virtually the only thing similar in the Ottoman Empire from it's founding to it's ending was the ruling dynasty.

European empires tended to be racial ones, in which white people would exercise more power and control etc. than the subject peoples, the same is not tru of the Ottoman Empire, especially during the golden age.

Btw - final point most of the cities may be in modern turkey, and may have turkish names, but most if not all the cities in modern turkey were founded by the Greeks, not the Turks.