Turkey should be added?
- Thread starter Quildavyr
- Start date
knigh+
.
Ok,i know Ottomans are representing allready Turkey and Turks.I am satisfied with Ottomans,but i will be extremely satisfied,if Turkey would be added instead Ottomans.And it would be a perfect marketing trick for Firaxis.(Everyone makes profit
With 2 leaders;
Gazi Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (Charismatic&Philosophical,Free Religion)
İsmet İnönü(Protective&Organized,Universal Suffrage)
UU:Mehmetçik(replaces Infantry,+2 str,mov:2)
UB:Kışla(replaces Barracks,+4 experience,+1
So what you think about?
I always say having Ottomans instead of Turks is plain dumb, as it is like having Tang Dynasty instead of China, or having Mughals instead of India.
Having Greeks and Byzantium separately is also weird but that is not within our topic.
So, Ottomans should have been called Turks, definitely. Because the word "Turk" represents many countries and empires, among which Ottoman is one (Byzantine is not...Mongols, partly, as quite a large fraction of Genghis Khan's hordes were Turkic nomadic tribes of Central Asia).
Ismet Inonu has no place among important Turkish leaders. If he had, his fav.civic would have been Free Religion.
Ataturk would be Charismatic-Creative, favoring one of Representation, Universal Sufferage, or Emancipation.
I would also keep one of the two Ottoman Sultans currently in the game.
UU: No way, that is ridiculously powerful. Besides, UUs in civ are not units that have an impact on the hearts of people of that civ's today, they are units that had an impact on history. So either keep Janissary, or bring in the Akindji (knight with FS and withdrawal bonuses).
UB: Similar comments as in the UU. If you ask anyone, what type of buildings are the Turks famous for, you'll get Ottoman Mosques (can't really use that due to game issues) and Turkish Baths (as in the game). Nobody (including Turks) would claim we have awesome Barracks. The other alternative would be Caravanserai, as only in Anatolia there are 6000 of these sealess harbors still standing, from Seljuks alone. It would be UB version of Harbor (or Lighthouse in BTS) which does not require water, giving the trade route yield bonus.
Actually if I was doing this from scratch, I would make the Turks nomadic (as they were until about 1000AD), the way Mongols are in the Warlords scenario. Then they would lose the ability at some point. It is difficult to mod this, because this wasn't at any specific point in history, rather a gradual change between 10th and 14th centuries. For example, Ottoman clan settled down with the conquest of Bursa in 1326, but by then Seljuk Turks already had had a civilized country, that was destroyed by Mongols in the previous century.
As for Ottomans being same/similar to Byzantines, that is only slightly true. During their early expansion, while they incorporated Byzantine burocracy, administration and part of the legal system, they got the rest of the legal system from Islam, and got half of the trade infrastructure from Seljuks. And starting from Mehmed II, every Sultan went berserk on regulatory reforms and overhauls. A century later, in the time of Suleyman, the Empire's burocracy had no resemblance of Byzantium.
If Atatürk was not a war leader, then there has never been one.
Gallipoli is sufficiently famous to anyone who has the slightest idea about WW1. And that was after he wrote books on military strategy. He was an army commander most of his life and never lost a battle, including several where he was outnumbered up to 3:1.
So I agree that your argument should be ignored.
Sorry, I get cranky in the mornings.
And they are called "hindi" in Turkish, because they came to Turkey from India. Originally the Portugese brought it to India from America. But before America was discovered, Brits used to call a smaller bird (fowl) from Turkey by the same name, which just adds to the confusion.
Bastian-Bux
King
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2006
- Messages
- 788
Well, I probably should stay away from any discussion when I'm running a fever, and probably should have explained what I meant. He didn't have the strategic leadership of any famous battle or war (famous outside Turkey). But in any case, it is a poor argument from my side, and should be ignored.
Oh go on. Tell the Australians and New Zealanders that the loss of 250.000 of their sons was accountable on someone without strategic leadership.
Ahimsadharma
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
- Messages
- 145
Well, I probably should stay away from any discussion when I'm running a fever
This is beyond nonsense. This is fiction of the most absurd kind. If you believe this, you might as well believe that the earth is flat, that Napoleon was dumber than a brain-damaged kid, that Gandhi had blood-drenched vampire orgies in his cottage and that Hitler loved Jews more than Romeo & Juliet loved each other.
Mustafa Kamal 'Ataturk' was THE overall commander of Turkish forces, present in battle-field (like Rommel or Nelson in battle) at Gallipoli.
That was the first time *ever* that previously invincible British Empire's troops tasted crushing defeat at the hands of an adversary.
No offence to Turks here but Ottoman Empire from mid 1700s all the way to early 1900s, Ottoman empire declined largely due to corruption and mismanagement. Instead of following the legacy of excellent administrators and/or war leaders before them, Ottoman Sultans largely spent their time in mindboggling opulence of Topkapi Palace , often drinking themselves to death.
It became the butt of jokes in Europe through the 1800s.
And the only man to reverse the trend was Ataturk.
For the first time ever in more than a century, Ottomans had won a major battle against a major military power on their own.
And that was Gallipoli.
In terms of 'famous battles' and 'famous wars', Gallipoli is as famous as it gets- its right there with Cannae, Battle of the Bulge,Stalingrad, Waterloo, Trafalgar, etc. in the western world.
knigh+
.
Oh go on. Tell the Australians and New Zealanders that the loss of 250.000 of their sons was accountable on someone without strategic leadership.
A common misunderstanding. "250k casualty on each side" that Turkish textbooks usually write, while being correct, does not mean what us civilians understand. In military terms, casualty is defined as soldiers who can no longer fight. This includes killed, wounded, hospitalized due to disease, psychological casualty, missing in action, those who refuse to fight or flee the army. So the half million casualty of Dardanelles include about 130k confirmed dead. Add MIA, and those later died in hospitals, you'll probably get 200-250k total.
Most of the allied casualty was British. As for the ANZACs, they should be about 1/3 - 1/4 of the allies (but I did not bother to look it up now). However, they get the publicity for being in the center of action, as well as being honorably heroic.
Bastian-Bux
King
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2006
- Messages
- 788
Ahmi, while its correct to give Kemal Atatürk due respect, I wouldn't go as far as completely forget Otto Liman von Sanders (as the german and turkish history did so readily).
The victory for the turks at Gallipoli is based on three pillars:
- an overconfident and unflexible british military leadership that trusted more in the jokes about the bad quality of osman troops then in secret service information.
- the successfull reforms of parts of the osman army initiated by Otto Liman von Sanders, a german instructor, and later (march 1915) leading officer of the 5th army (the one fighting in Gallipoli).
- Kemal Atatürks extreme military brilliance.
Victory is never the work of one man alone. But the lack of that one man, can mean the difference between victory and defeat.
The victory for the turks at Gallipoli is based on three pillars:
- an overconfident and unflexible british military leadership that trusted more in the jokes about the bad quality of osman troops then in secret service information.
- the successfull reforms of parts of the osman army initiated by Otto Liman von Sanders, a german instructor, and later (march 1915) leading officer of the 5th army (the one fighting in Gallipoli).
- Kemal Atatürks extreme military brilliance.
Victory is never the work of one man alone. But the lack of that one man, can mean the difference between victory and defeat.
Bastian-Bux
King
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2006
- Messages
- 788
knigh, probably correct. But I do consider the battle of Gallipoli
a "famous battle or war (famous outside Turkey)"
and just wanted to set this straight.
a "famous battle or war (famous outside Turkey)"
and just wanted to set this straight.
Quildavyr
Man of sick jokes!
Caravanserai can maybe replace Customs House too.
And about the leaders for the Turkish Empire,i would say;
Attila,Alparslan,Atatürk,Suleiman,Mehmet 2,II. Kılıjarslan...
Three of them would be good.
Andvare
King
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2007
- Messages
- 788
Emm, it was the German marshal Otto von Linden that had the overall strategic leadership at Gallipoli. Ataturk was the frontline commander, not the strategic commander. He was, what, a colonel then? Few leaders have much strategic command below the rank of Brigadier General.
I was talking out of my arse, sure. And again, it should be ignored.
I was talking out of my arse, sure. And again, it should be ignored.
knigh+
.
That is Otto Liman von Sanders. And Mustafa Kemal was promoted to General after the first bunch of battles, after which he was given the entire northern mini-front of the peninsula.
And yes, as Bastian-Bux said, credit goes to many people, including Sanders Pasha. But just like ANZACs, Mustafa Kemal was at the center of action, and hence the fame.
So why are we even discussing this? The question is supposed to be whether he could lead a country, not an army (although he had proven to be capable to do both).
I agree with knigh+ here. Turks for millenia have been primary shapers of world history. From the times of Huns, through Gokturks and other Turkic empires, culminating in the great Seldjuk Empire and then the Ottoman,Turks changed world history in so many and so dramatic ways. Naming the current Ottoman Civ as Turks wouldn't be outrageous.
Turks ruled over a vast geography through different eras, so to avoid confusion "Turkey" in Civ can be interpreted as "the land where Turks live", instead of today's Anatloia+Eastern Thrace. Just like when you play as "England", you don't actually start on the British isles but on a random map and you are called "England" in game terms.
Since the Turks had many great empires and rulers, the Turkish ruler-set can be representative of these different empires: eg. Kilich-Arslan for Seldjuk Turks, Mehmet the Conqueror for the Ottomans, Atatürk for contemporary Turks (you can put in an ancient Turkish personality, like Kül-Tigin of Göktürks instead of Atatürk, if you like), all under the choices for the civ "Turks".
For city names, you can include the existing city name list, plus some of the important centers Turks ruled over for the wider geographic representation. This may necessitate a few duplications of cities under the cityname lists of other civs, like Selanik for Thessaloniki. It was not problematic to make Byzies have a city called Constantinople although that city's later name is used by the Ottoman starting city Istanbul, so a few more such cases should be considered. Samarkand (to be put in as Semerkant), Bokhara (as Buhara), Tabriz (as Tebriz), Akyar (today's Crimean city of Sevastapol), Belgrade (as Belgrat), Kahire (today's Cairo, ruled by Turkish dynasty of Mamelukes for centuries before Ottomans arrived) etc. These city names may have an order of appearance on the basis of the general East to West axis that Turks followed (making Istanbul, Selanik, Belgrat etc later cities to be founded) in history. The current citylist for Ottomans would still make up the great majority of the final list, acknowledging Turks' final settlement.
For the UU, you can only have one so you stay with the Janissaries, or bring back the Sipahis, or put in the Akindjis (stat details can be figured out depending on which one is eventually chosen). For the UB, Hammam is fine for me.
Anyway, these are just thinkings-out-loud, open for debate on any detail.
Titus001
Warlord
- Joined
- May 11, 2007
- Messages
- 223
Err..... I read the post above and I did understand. Thats why I explained the made up name "Byzantine" to you and gave you a link. You got it right that I will continue to call them east roman empire or Romaion Empire instead of "Byzantine" which Westerners gave the greek speaking roman empire. Westerners for a long time on purpose have been doing this since the time of Charlemagne and his descendents.When the "Holy Roman empire" sent a diplomat to Constantinople to visit with the emperor he addressed the emperor at Constantinople as the Emperor of the greeks.The emperor in Constantinople did not take kindly to this insult so he put him in jail and took away his gifts. The Greek speakers were proud to be roman and nobody can rewrite the history to change facts.
Many people still use the adjective term "Byzantine" to mean duplicitous, tricky, untrustworthy. The word "Byzantine" denoted the empire and connoted it's supposed characteristics: dishonestly, dissimulation and decadence. That is one of many reasons why I will not call this empire "Byzantine" because it is an insult to them. The people who lived in the "Byzantine Empire" never knew nor used the word "Byzantine." They know themselves to be Romans, nothing more and absolutely nothing less. I call them Romaioi Empire because that is what they called themselves.
Antilogic- "It doesn't change the fact that they existed independent from Rome for roughly 1,000 years after Rome fell."
Hmm..... I guess that is because the western side was conquered by Germanic barbarians who ironically a few centuries later would call themselves the "Holy Roman empire." Now that is odd, Is it not? What do you mean by Rome fell? Do you mean the old city that was run down? Or the Roman civilization fell? If you traveled back in time to the 6th or 7th century and said the roman empire fell in 476 AD the people in Constantinople would look at you like you were from the moon or crazy. If you said they were a Byzantine they would look at you even more strangely.
The whole culture thing you said is correct in a way. Roman civilization back in the days of Carthage was certainly different from the roman civilization in 339AD. Just like the Roman civilization was different in 600AD compared to 1453 AD when they were conquered by the powerful Turks. I don't know why this is so hard to comprehend.
Spearthrower
Thrower of spears
No one is debating whether it was the same or not Titus except for you. You're just arguing about the label.... which, while you are totally right, was not their own name for their empire.... it is the accepted English name for the empire. If I want to refer to something so that you know what I am talking about, I use the name that I know, you know and we all know.... whether that is semantically correct or not.
I have nothing to disagree with you about except that you are calling down on someone who obviously also knows what they are talking about.... this seems little more than preaching to the choir.
You already accepted that "Japan" also never existed then to follow your argument... no Japanese person ever for a moment used the word "Japan" or "Japanese"..... does that mean that we are wrong to refer to them as such?
I have nothing to disagree with you about except that you are calling down on someone who obviously also knows what they are talking about.... this seems little more than preaching to the choir.
You already accepted that "Japan" also never existed then to follow your argument... no Japanese person ever for a moment used the word "Japan" or "Japanese"..... does that mean that we are wrong to refer to them as such?
knigh+
.
I don't think I would include conquered cities among the list of cities to be founded. Sure, the Turkish civ is free to conquer Constantinople and rename it Istanbul, but I would be happier if it was limited to Kashgar, Yarkent, Urumchi, Beshbalik, Karakurum... but wait, if Mongols get to use Karakurum as their capital maybe it is also ok for Turks to start with Istanbul. Bah, I confused myself again, this is what you get when you try to fit civs of different eras on the same map.
So I guess Istanbul and Salonica are ok but a definite no to Belgrade.
tomaalimosh
Warlord
My question was,should firaxis remove Ottomans and put Turkey in the game?
It wasn't,What did the Turks achieve?
Only yes or no
Well ... I guess the one thing they achieved, that would separate them from the Ottoman Empire, would be the Armenian Genocide. I mean... that happened exactly at the birth of the modern Turkish state.
Ataturk was both a great leader and a great general. As for that, He is far more deserving to be a leader in Civ 4 than some other leaders who are already in.For example, France's de Gaulle.
Yet I don't think include Turkey as a new civilization is a good idea.Turkey is not influential enough yet.
Yet I don't think include Turkey as a new civilization is a good idea.Turkey is not influential enough yet.
De Gaule, the only "Big" (not great) thing he did was make a pro-independance speech in Quebec city. Big mistake....
As for it being renamed Turkey, I disagree. Turkey was never a great civilization. (Not since the republic) And before that it was named the Ottoman empire. I'm in favor of adding Ataturk...
That is an allegation taht has yet to be proven. The Armenian diplomates have refused to open their archives, as oposed to Turkey. They have something to hide. And modern Turkey was born after that genocide. Its like saying the nazies held their concentration camps at the birth of modern Germany....
If you're going to attack something, do it right and do it with facts.
tomaalimosh
Warlord
Unfortunately... this is all I got.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide
you figure out the rest...
knigh+
.
I would have dignified that with a proper answer if it had the sligtest relation to the topic.