Who whee. These "we want Turks" discussions do tend to draw attention from a lot of people don't they, and somehow we always tend to see the more wide extremes of opinions too. Now let's see if I can add some input on the issue, and add my opinion to the heap.
First of all I agree both to the sentiments that the Turkish civilisation ( Ottoman most likely, possibly Seljuk ) should have been included, since they were a very important historical factor over several centuries. But I would also like to say that they do have a point in saying that the middle-east would be somewhat cramped with all too many civilisations, but then again, I myself like it when it's tight between the Civ's. More rough-n-tumble that way.
Now I'll try to pop in some opinions on the stuff said here and voiced there...
-
"Ulv= arright my schwachsinniger friend, just write one or two things u Turx did good for the humanity"
I can't say I am one of the "u Turx" as you so eloquently put it. But blatantly racist opinions have no place here in my humble opinion, and as for things the turks did for humanity include poetry, medicine, literature and more. Much of european knowledge in those subjects came directly and indirectly from the arabs and turks.
-
"Eriksson= The swedes/norweigans (aka the vikings) gave you the keel, wich made it possible to put a big sail on ship that were very manuverable. This made it possible to colonize Iceland, Greenland and the coast of Nothern america. New trade routes to the mediterranian and russia was now possible."
True indeed, but the swedish were by far the most passive people among what generally is labeled the "vikings". Whilst the Norwegians/Danish/Islandic did most of the real plundering and travelling around the world fighting here and there the swedes mostly just did farming and trading. But indeed, the Swedes have had an important place in history, and had there been more Civ's to go around I would have vouched for them.
-
"raven= So you can compare Turkish "civilisation" with those "countries"..."
Some of those mentioned yes. The Mongols definitely deserve as much attention as the Turks and many other ( chosen ) Civ's. Despite as noted having a rather short "lifetime" as a great power they did manage to conquer a very large chunk of the world as they knew in only a century and a half or so.
And the Spanish, being a very important european civilisation I would consider worthy, but due to their small geographical area I would indeed choose the Turks before them.
-
"malphigian= As for the "Arabs", for someone flinging around history so much you should be more careful. The Ottoman Turks (who I guess are who you mean by "Arabs") were much further from fanatical than, say, Europe was, even after they got smacked around by the crusades. They were much more interested in making money via trade. The fanatacism you are referring to is a VERY recent development (last 60 years or so) in the Arab world on a political level."
True and false one could say. Certainly *Fundamentalism* as often referred to when saying "fanatical" is a very recent development when looking over the centuries gone past. But erstwhile the original Arabs ( with the rise of Islam ) were the singularly most religious fighting group in record both the Crusading countries of Europe and the Turks ( Seljuk at that time, Ottoman later ) were driven by a lot of religious fanaticism tempered with temporal greed over land and money. The Ottomans did, as do most when fighting a conflict with religion involved, inflict many atrocities on conquered peoples in the name of religion, but so have europeans before.
-
"Robespierre= It would be too much to have the Egyptians, Babylonians, Turks, and Persians all in the middle east. I guess the Persians are supposed to represent all the non-semitic muslim peoples of Asia. The Babylonians represent the semites (Babylonians, Arabs, Hebrews, Parthians, Assyrians), and the Egyptians represent all the northern African peoples (the Egyptians, Carthaginians, Libyans, Berbers, Ethiopians)."
Perhaps. The latter part is indeed true, but as to the "too much" part I disagree. But this is merely a voiced opinion, since I feel I would much rather have a 100 different small empires squabbling over a medium to large landmass than 10 or so large empires fighting over a huge continent. But this is merely me, I suspect.
-
"malphigian= I think that Suleman(sp?) and the turks would make a great civ... what do you think the special unit would be? Cannon?"
Suleiman is the accepted english spelling. It would not surprise me if his real name was not precisely that, since europeans adopted names they could more easily fit into their languages. Saladin for one was not actually named that, but some longer name which I cannot recall. As for Suleiman again a number would be fitting, since it was quite a few Ottoman leaders who held that name.
As for their perceived special unit the cannon is hardly a very good alternative, since it never was that special. Certainly they were the first to bring real cannons to bear in live conflict, but the turkish cannons ( despite romantic notions, movies & stories ) weren't that unique in the end. More to the point I would have the Janissary as a unique unit for the Turks, at least the Ottomans. Seeing as how the Janissary troops were among the few concepts they held uniquely. Well trained soldiers recruited at early age in equal parts from turkish peoples as from conquered people, they did form an efficient and very highly moraled fighting force.
Well kiddos, that's all for now.
) they where certainly very good to arts in the reign of their empire.
