Why are the Turks Scientific?

[Hellfire]

This thread is a good reason for playing the game with the "allow unique civilization abilities" turned off.

 

[God]

The modern day country of Turkey is made up of mixed people. Some are more Turkic, some more Grecian. And some are more Syrian and some more Arabic. Its a mixed country.

The Ottomans and modern day Turks from Turkey are very similar, basically the same people. Modern day Turks from Turkey are slightly more different from Turks of central Asia.

Also the Mongols were very similar to Turks of central Asia. When Ghenghis Khan took over the Mongol tribes to make before he took the rest of the world, he conquered some Turkish tribes too.

Some tribes which are called Mongol tribes can also be Turkish tribes. The Tatars, a powerful tribe in the region were Turks, but one could say they were Mongols too. Too much mixing.

Anyway the Turks of Central Asia were the result of the Huns (Mongols) counquering the region and mixing with the local population (around the Caspian sea) which at that time were more like the Celtic/Germanic/ Aryan tribes that conquered Europe, India and Persia.

If a person looked at an Ottoman Turk and a central Asian turk, it would be very easy to tell the difference. The central Asian Turks are far more Mongoloid with Mongoloid features.

PCHighway: You're right. Some Turks fled from the Mongols, other's joined them. Many of the eastern Turkish tribes (which are almost exactly the same in looks as the Mongols) joined up with Genghis Khan earlier. The central Asian Turks around the Caspian sea (Samarkund, Bokhara), joined when Ghenghis burnt their cities. Most were taken as slaves. The western Turks(Persia, Anatolia), were mostly destroyed, because they were far more civilized and had no interest in joining the Mongol horde.

In the Mongolia region there were several major tribes. The two most powerful were the Naiman and Kereit. Both were of Turkish origin but now more Mongolized. So you can really call them either. The Uighurs were another important tribe and they were Turks that came to the Mongolia region in 8th century AD. They were conquered by the Khirgiz another Turkish tribe which too was Mongolized.

This stuff I'm getting out of a book. I'm trying to figure out who the Mongols that influenced these tribes were, since it seems like the only real important tribes were Turkish tribes that had settled there.

Basically some of these tribes resisted the Mongols and others joined them in an alliance. The Kereit became allies and helped the Mongols conquer the Naiman which made them the dominant tribe in the region and helped them conquer the rest of the tribes before moving on towards central Asia. First they too Peking and some parts of China and then headed towards Samarkand. Samarkand was the capital of the Great Seljuk Sultanate. Muhammed 2 was the emperor and his grand army was defeated by the Mongols. This was one of the largest battles for the Mongols. They razed and killed millions of people in the region for resisting them. These Turks were mostly killed and the rest were used as fodder. So the Turks that joined him were back nearer to Mongolia.

Its kind of confusing but I did a report on Seljuks, and another on the Mongols, and have a book about them. Its a biography on Genghis Khan.


4. Napoleon was probably talking about India, Egypt, Persia or China when he said that quote. Although the Ottomans were the most powerful of the 4, the others were considered more highly.

I'm saying Egypt only because Napoleon was there in person and saw the remnants of the Egyptian empire.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Originally posted by PCHighway
1.) Never! Saying the Ottomans and the Turks note:From Turkey, is denying that the Turks, (once again from the modern day country of Turkey) had NO say in the events leading to the true Ottoman Empire. the Carthaginian debate holds. Granted, it sounds absurd to me too. Almost as absurd as you saying that the Ottomans and present day Turkey are 2 separate Civs. In the u.s. Native Americans were annihilated, a form of genocide. You would do better to say Americans, including Mexicans. As many, and I mean many, people from the u.s. are Latin American. I used the extreme analogy of Phoenician as it seems you are using the extreme Turkic\Ottoman example.

3.) and I would call it Militaristic. But the a big part of war is equipment, The Vietnamese one the war vrs. the U.S. Yet they lost more than 1.000.000 while we lost 60.000, Manpower counts for a lot. But technology counts for an equal amount. So we could spend all day arguing about which we would call it, obviously, because the Turks had both.

4.) Your right Napoleon was a moron we agree on one thing, or perhaps two. . .

Im willing to give up the argument and agree they should not be scientific. Also this might change. The Chinese, in my version of the game are not scientific. Can you think of a civ more worthy? However they do have the 'build science often' flagged in the editor. In fact, in my copy of the Civ iii manual on p.17, China is listed as industrious scientific. Which shows Firaxis might change the civ abilities for reasons other than historic. And that would satisfy both are arguments, I am sure.

Back to Napoleon, your right. looking back at your mention of Faraday, I thought of James C. Maxwell, who was one of the main reasons of changing my decision.

1. I would say that modern Turkey is different from the Ottoman Empire in that modern Turkey is much less oriental, but they are very similar and so probably the same civ. However, that does not mean that the pagan Greeks and Lydians are part of the same civ. Such a position makes nonsense of the idea of civlization. And Catal Huyuk? The millenia involved means that it is probable that very few modern Turks are descendants of their ancient predecessors. But even if that were the case, you would be basing the idea of a Turkish civ on race and genetics, rather than culture.

3. Actually, I wasn't talking about manpower, I was talking about industry in constrast to science. But I think my strict distinction between science and industry may alienate many people.

4. This is something I'm very glad to hear . I respect you all the more.

However, I don't share your opinion of the Chinese. Yes they very VERY IMPORTANT contributions, but lets not exaggerate. China definitely has more claim to that status than Persia, Babylon and Russia and Chinese science made piecemeal contributions in history, but bearing in mind the AGE of that civilization, it was not as prolific as the Greeks, the Germans, the English or the Americans in time-relative terms. Industry and religion I think are more important in explaining the success of the Chinese state over the centuries. But I'll admit that at certain times, particularly the half-dozen centuries before Christ, China could definitely come close to having as worthy of status as "scientific" as 19th/20th Germany or 4th/5th/6th century bc Greece.

BTW, in case you were thinking otherwise, James C. Maxwell was Scottish and not English. I apologize if you didn't make that confusion.

 

[sabo]

Originally posted by calgacus


Get your facts straight, my man!

Anyway, I only said that they "made virtually no contributions to science", so you have to tell me what these anachronistic scientists did .

Hey that's what I read somewhere, I wish I could remember where. I meant Muslims in general though

 

[Exsanguination]

Originally posted by PCHighway
I completely agree Catal Huyuk is not Ottoman. But would you say that Alexander the Great's men, from Macedon, conquered Persia? No, it was what is now known as Greece that conquered it.

Now you're getting personal here!

Seriously, I must jump in and defend ye old Alexander here. I can't believe you actually believe that! The ancient Greeks were originally several separated peoples (ie Boetians) - there were probably ten or twenty. I can't remember the names of all of them. But the Macedonians were one of them - completely separate in language, ethnicity, everything. The MACEDONIANS conquered Persia. Yes, they had help from some allied Greek states, but the majority of the army (until they reached the far east, when many Persians were incorporated into the army) was Macedonian.

Now, on to the topic . I don't know about the Turks, but I can point out the following fallacies: Lydians were Turks ( ); Pergamum was Turkish; something about the Assyrians? Much of what you say is based on the fact that you consider anyone who ever lived in Asia Minor should be considered "Turkish", which is blatant falsehood.

Even the ancient city of Troy is in Turkey

So I guess that means that the Ionians and Persians are Turkish as well, eh?

No hard feelings, I just found a lot of that funny. But never, ever bash Alexander so long as I roam these boards :flamedevi

--Ex

 

[God]

Originally posted by sabo10


Hey that's what I read somewhere, I wish I could remember where. I meant Muslims in general though

Yeah then you would be correct. That whole time period, from about 700 AD- 1400 AD.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by God
Also the Mongols were very similar to Turks of central Asia. When Ghenghis Khan took over the Mongol tribes to make before he took the rest of the world, he conquered some Turkish tribes too.

Some tribes which are called Mongol tribes can also be Turkish tribes. The Tatars, a powerful tribe in the region were Turks, but one could say they were Mongols too. Too much mixing.

PCHighway: You're right. Some Turks fled from the Mongols, other's joined them. Many of the eastern Turkish tribes (which are almost exactly the same in looks as the Mongols) joined up with Genghis Khan earlier. The central Asian Turks around the Caspian sea (Samarkund, Bokhara), joined when Ghenghis burnt their cities. Most were taken as slaves. The western Turks(Persia, Anatolia), were mostly destroyed, because they were far more civilized and had no interest in joining the Mongol horde.

In the Mongolia region there were several major tribes. The two most powerful were the Naiman and Kereit. Both were of Turkish origin but now more Mongolized. So you can really call them either. The Uighurs were another important tribe and they were Turks that came to the Mongolia region in 8th century AD. They were conquered by the Khirgiz another Turkish tribe which too was Mongolized.

Basically some of these tribes resisted the Mongols and others joined them in an alliance. The Kereit became allies and helped the Mongols conquer the Naiman which made them the dominant tribe in the region and helped them conquer the rest of the tribes before moving on towards central Asia. First they too Peking and some parts of China and then headed towards Samarkand. Samarkand was the capital of the Great Seljuk Sultanate. Muhammed 2 was the emperor and his grand army was defeated by the Mongols. This was one of the largest battles for the Mongols. They razed and killed millions of people in the region for resisting them. These Turks were mostly killed and the rest were used as fodder. So the Turks that joined him were back nearer to Mongolia.

Some clarification about the regular nomadic confederations (of which the Mongols were but one) or hordes which erupted out of the steppes every now and then. The confederation/horde will take its name (or as named by historians) after the dominant tribe. However member tribes need not all come fr the same stock. E.g. the people we know as the Mongols was a confederation of steppe tribes led by the dominant Mongol tribe, and incl many other Turkic tribes in the area.

Also it's no easy task to distinguish language fr race, esp among the steppe tribes since all ultimately arose fr the same general stock. The Turkic tribes who joined Genghis' plundering enterprise (which was ultimately what it was) probably eventually spoke Mongolian and became assimilated into the Mongol fold. So were they still Turkic or Mongol?

E.g. most Chinese speak Mandarin and all write in the same script but all Chinese are not of one single race or racial stock; the biggest division being betw the more Mongoloid/Altaic northerners and the more SE Asian-like southerners.

 

[PCHighway]

Well Calgacus, you can expect a come back post from that Chinese remark you made any second now. Right after this. . . I dont want to make my posts to long. But yes, I would never say Maxwell was from England. I should have went further and put Edinburgh, If i remember correctly they still have a list of books he took out. There is, of course no reason for apology.

Exsanguination-No hard feelings, I just found a lot of that funny. But never, ever bash Alexander so long as I roam these boards

Offense taken. As from my view, Your post is insulting.
Now that I've settled the Turkish discussion, time to move on to the Haughty, Supercilious, Egotistic, braggart. Who goes by the name of Alexander III. That’s right, I didn’t say Great. To get my point(s) across, since you mistook most of my last post, I’ll tell you the 'secret meanings'.

Yes from what we know he was a genius. But im sure you know, -(never met a person more obsessed with Alexander the great)- he was born in Pella. In the 10th century, It was part of what is now present day Greece, (thats what we call now present day Greece) His strange Mother was from the ruling house of Epirus. Told him he was a descendant of Achilles and his father from Herakles. If this is true, then the people of ancient Greece were certainly gullible. He carried the Odyssey "everywhere" and supposedly studied Achilles life. His famous teacher, was from Thrace, more exact is Stagirus.

His father was a physician to Macedon's current King. At 17 he was sent Athens for 20 years, then he traveled for awhile, ended up in Macedon. then you know the rest. Alexander takes his fathers place, Aristotle goes back to Athens, which gets conquered by his old student, when Alexander dies Aristotle flee's to Euboea? Forgot that one, and dies of some type of sickness.(I Know more about the Philosophers than Ancient Greece than Alexander the Great)

Thebes revolts Macedon, sends to Athens for help. Alexander the III slaughters 30.000 people, and destroys ever single building except "temples and the house of the poet Pindar". Now I don’t want to have to go on here. Im sure you know more than me but, With 30.000 he took Persia. And Im not sure if, at this point how much of his army was from Macedon.

Exsanguination- I can point out the following fallacies: Lydians were Turks crazyeye: ); Pergamum was Turkish; something about the Assyrians? Much of what you say is based on the fact that you consider anyone who ever lived in Asia Minor should be considered "Turkish", which is blatant falsehood.

Now I'll explain nice and slow so you follow me here, I said Lydia, is Now in the Present day country of Turkey. I never said they were Turkish. That would be like saying that Constantinople was Turkish just because It is now. Lydia was influenced by Greece, as I said in another post, which I recommend you read.

And the Assyrians had a post system that pre-dates the Persians, They found tons of legal Documents in Kultepe, look it up. The city is called Kultpe. It was under Assyrian rule in 1700 b.c. The letters were in cuneiform and they had envelopes of some sort, I think clay? so it was more like a box. It depicted some religious scene on it.

No my misguided friend, I never said that everyone who lived in Anatolia was Turkish. FYI, The area around that of the Central Turkic peoples, was divided into 5 cultural parts, the Arabs, the Persians, the Turks, Mongol’s, Chinese And Aryan's.(mostly northern India) Look at a globe, then look at the Caspian Sea, on one side is Turkmenistan (one among others) and the other side is Azerbaijan and Persia (Iran). The central Asian Turks, went from Turkmenistan to Azerbaijan, then to Turkey. At least that’s how I interpret it.

I was saying that the native peoples from Anatolia, when conquered by the Ottomans, Joined (one way or another) the Ottoman Army. And over the years, became 'friendly' or 'on good terms' with Their conquers. . . Excluding the Greeks, naturally.

Btw; You might want to ask JimmyH for the 'Scythe Chariot' It would make a great contribution to your mod. All JimmyH asks for is the pcx.\sfx\pedia entry, And I For one would be happy to do those.