10-08-2002 04:33									#1
	Ottomans Over-Rated Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I am happy to know Firaxis has included the Turks in PTW. However the Ottomans though very popular in the Western World shouldn't have been picked. They did not even originate from modern day Turkey, in actuality Turkish people have a rich history that starts elsewhere.

That place being Central Asia from which they came. In history the Turks and Mongols battled it out in the Steppes of Asia for supremacy. The Mongols decisively beat the Turks around 1200AD, many Turks joined the Mongol Ranks such as the Uygurs, and Turkish was the main language used through out the Mongol empire. This epic struggle however is not given due attention. Instead we skip over it and proceed to a more European version of history, one where the Turks are recognized only as the Ottomans.

This blind eye given towards people from the steppes of Asia gives a bias Western version of history. Just read a few books on the subject and you will see many times over centuries how Central Asians impacted history on a colossal scale. The Huns lead by Attila were from the Steppes, so were the Khazars, Bulgars, Seljuks and many more… even the mighty Ottomans felt the wrath of Central Asian might when decisively beaten in 1402 by Timur-Lenk the Tartar. The Chinese also knew all to well of these "barbaric nomads" from Asia, the Turks and Mongols. Unable to effectively deal with them, they opted to build the Great Wall to keep them out.

In picking the Ottomans it is most likely then that their capital will be Constantinople (modern day Istanbul). This I don't think is a smart choice since there are already too many Civs in that part of the world, especially since places like Central Asia are practically left empty. The entire vast area of Central Asia belongs only to the Mongols, no struggle no having to unite the Turkic & Mongol Tribes. Anyway I know when PTW comes out I will change the location of the Turks, and as for their special unit I rather have something that reflects their true history of having fast light horsemen than to add another foot soldier to the game like the Janissaries.

Thank God we can edit the game, but still I thought I would share some info and touch on a larger picture of Turkish history that many are not aware of. If you think its minor, then I ask you what do you think people would say if there was no England in the Game but instead only Americans? Brazil but no Portugal, Mexico but no Spain etc... see my point?

	10-08-2002 05:16									#2
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The Ottomans were the empire that brought christian europe to it's knees under the rule of emperors like Suleyman the Magnificent. The Ottoman Empire was the most powerful state in europe for a pretty good while. Turkey has only existed as a proper state since the 20's. Your point that the Ottomans were just an offshoot of sorts of the much-longer running series of barbaric turkish raiders is somewhat fair. But simply arguing that the Ottomans shouldn't be in because their predeccessors are not is like arguing that the Greeks shouldn't be in because the Minoans are not. The various bands of Turkish raiders may be longer running, but the Ottomans have done considerably more to gain inclusioni as one of the great civs of history.

	10-08-2002 20:36									#3
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Well in all fairness, when us stupid westerners look at Europe (and maybe somewhat the middle east) we see a plethora of cultures. Then when we look at a map of Africa it seems all that can come out of our mouth is ... err... Zulu!?!? they were scary and killed white people, I think we can include them... AS THE MOST BELLIGERENT CIV IN THE GAME! Oh yeah they had other important interesting facets to their culture, but we just remmember Shaka killing white people...

	11-08-2002 00:38									#4
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

it also bothers me also how there are so few african cultures...
and no south american or austrellian.
what south american cultures to add in is easy, and there are a good amount of austrellion cultures to pick from, but if you were to add another african culture what would it be?

egypt and zulu were obvious choices (although egypt is more middle eastern that african), were there any other very dominant african cultures?

you can't really choose any modern ones because all but about 2 of the contries have been european colonies in the past 50-200 years. that would leave liberia(american freed slave colonie) and ethiopia for modern ones... i can't think of any others.

	11-08-2002 03:13									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by zorbop egypt and zulu were obvious choices (although egypt is more middle eastern that african), were there any other very dominant african cultures? you can't really choose any modern ones because all but about 2 of the contries have been european colonies in the past 50-200 years. that would leave liberia(american freed slave colonie) and ethiopia for modern ones... i can't think of any others.

Medieval Mali (Mansa Musa at Timbuktu) would be a good choice. His overspending pilgramage to Mecca ruined the gold market in Egypt for decades - and of course earned the attention of the Portuguese . . .

I'd like to see the Inca and the Brazilians added myself, along with Old Mali. But nooo, who are we going to get? The Celts! Isn't europe already overrepresented?

	11-08-2002 04:07									#6
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I would agree that Europe IS over-represented, except for the mind-numbing non-inclusion of the Mighty Polish Empire !RAH!

	11-08-2002 19:23									#7
	Tired of ads?

I agree, ottomans are overrated. A milkcrate, footstool, or even a stack of magazines works just as well.

	11-08-2002 21:57									#8
	Inflate your Upload Space

I think adding the Celts was a mistake. Look at the size of England on the world maps. You though EUROPE was overcrowded. I think they should have added Carthaginians or something instead.

	12-08-2002 00:04									#9
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

The Carthagians are in Play the World, but I agree there are a lot of blank spaces on an Earth map not used in this add-on disk.

The game is crying out for the Inca's, as the Aztec's get South America all to themselves. Totally imbalancing! Maybe Firaxis couldn't decide on a suitable special unit for them that was different enough from what's already in the game.

And what about Australasia, a complete blank space again! How about having the Maori's start in New Zealand to fill the gap.

I think the most pointless of the new Civs has to be the Arabs. Why have the Arabs when you already have the Babylonians, Persians and Egyptians? The Arabs are all these 3 put together surely!

Don't get me wrong I'm looking forward to having these New Civs, but not at the expense of more pressing needs for the complete Earth map experience.

	12-08-2002 00:27									#10
	Arabs Get a bigger avatar today!

Much of these cultures have been lost/fused into an Arab one.

I see your point with the Babylonians and Egyptians since they both speak Arabic, but the Persians do not and the same goes with the Turks. They share similarities just like the many cultures of Europe do, but they are not all the same.

	12-08-2002 00:39									#11
	Remove this text

I don't care much if they call them the Otoomans or the Turks, it is basically the same people. I would have preferred the Turks though, but that is just because it is called Turkey.

	14-08-2002 07:19									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I don't think the Ottomans are overrated. I think it's appropriate for the Ottomans to represent the Turks as a whole, in part due because the modern Turkish state is a product of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans are regarded in Arabic history as the greatest Islamic empire ever, and many historians acknowledge that it was the Ottomans, with the 1 exception of the Byzantine Emperor Justinian, who came the closest to actually recreating the old Roman Empire in its entirety .

teturkhan I agree that Central Asians have made a tremendous impact on history, but I think you should reconsider your stance on the location of the Ottomans. Their capital should and must be Constantinople. Now I would have really like for the Byzantines to be in the game or the expansion, but with the Romans there it would have been a bit redundant. While it's true that the game already covers many European powers and the region is a bit crowded, there is no official representation yet for Constantinople. Don't forget that this was the largest, most powerful, richest city in Europe for much of the middle ages and all of the dark ages following the fall of the western empire, far outstripping London, Paris, and Rome combined in importance and prestige. Without Constantinople, it is very likely that Europeans, and for that matter North Americans and South Americans, would all be speaking some brand of Arabic or even Turksih today.

Simply moving the Turks is similar to just ignoring a vital part of history, like the central Asians. Besides, where would you place the capital? At Ankara???? A little unimpressive, to say the least....

	14-08-2002 07:57									#13
	Nomadic Hordes Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Everything you said is correct, however I still feel the Turks belong in Central Asia. That was the land they originated from, where they lived in for thousands of years. Can you imagine the game having the US, Brazil and Chile but none of the countries they originated from like Spain, Portugal or England? This however is the case with the Ottomans. The people from the steppes of Asia have impacted the world far before the Mongols and Ottomans came into power. The Great Wall of China wasn't made just for the 13th Century Mongols. It was made because for thousands of years they kept getting invaded. Attila the Hun was from Central Asia and he went on to sack Rome, Turks invaded India early around 600AD then a thousand years later they formed the Moghul Empire there, the Crusades were fought against the Turks, the list goes on and on. The Ottomans were the last of the great tribes from Asia, possibly the greatest. They came to Anatolia and started carving out an empire from the faltering Byzantines.

Final Point: Europe is full of too many Civs as it is. Placing the Turks in Central Asia will bring balance to the game. The Greeks can still build their Constantinople, and the Turks well, they will have to invade if they want it

By the way, the Ottoman Sultans never lost sight of the fact they were from Asia. Many times they refer to themselves as Khan, especially after Sultan Selim married the Crimean Khan's daughter, who was descended from Genghis Khan. A little off topic but its neat how people don't realize that though the Mongol Empire collapsed centuries before, Genghis Khan's blood still flowed through the Ottoman Line right up until the end in the 20th Century.

Last edited by teturkhan on 14-08-2002 at 09:02

	14-08-2002 08:51									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by leunames Now I would have really like for the Byzantines to be in the game or the expansion, but with the Romans there it would have been a bit redundant.

Byzantines=Romans


The Byzantines were the Eastern Roman Empire. Even if they spoke Greek instead of Latins they called themselves Romans.

The word Byzantine was created by the Franks to allow them to claim to be the heir of the Roman Empire.

	14-08-2002 09:17									#15
	Inflate your Upload Space

Yes that is correct. Except that the word Byzantine actually referred to the denizens of the Greek colony of Byzantium, before Constantine founded the new capital of the Roman Empire on the site.

The word Byzantine was coined by French historians who wished to differentiate the cutlure and 1000 year history of the Eastern Roman Empire from the it's younger counterpart, the Western Roman Empire.

In a legal and political sense, even geographical, the Byzantines indeed were the heirs of Rome. Culturally it was another matter entirely, but the seat of the Roman Empire was Constantinople after 324, and it remained so until the Ottomans claimed it for their own in 1453, en route to nearly recreating the old Roman Empire in its entirety.

	14-08-2002 09:29									#16
	Tired of ads?

teturkhan, I understand your point. I still disagree, but I can see what your thinking is. Ineed it is absurd to have the United States without the English, or Brazil without the Portugese (off topic, but my father's family originates from Portugal, and my mother's family originates from Spain. How sad I was when I discovered that Firaxis had not even decided to put one of them in the original Civ 3!!). I think my main disagreement is that the Turks are presently in Asia Minor, and as such I believe they should be represented there, and the Ottomans give it the perfect oppurtunity.

I dunno. But I understand your point. It's like having the Romans represent the Trojans, who came from Anatolia, instead of the Trojans having their own civ, which may or may not consist of more than Troy itself...I dunno just an example.

The Turks did indeed cause all of the Crusades, but let's not forget that it was the threatening presence of the Turks in the Byzantine Empire's province of Anatolia and their proximity to Constantinople that caused Emperor Alexius I to ask Pope Urban II for help, which initiated the Crusades.

Probably a more realistic solution would be to have the various Turkic peoples from the Steppes be represented in their own civ, and the Ottomans represent the product of them, much like England and America. But alas, probably it'll never be....

But where would your capital be???

Have you ever played the Civilization: Call to Power Series? They had an unbelievable amount of civs to choose from, I don't know why Firaxis can't do the same. That game even had the Nigerians and the Canadians, to name a few....

Last edited by leunames on 14-08-2002 at 09:35

	14-08-2002 09:35									#17
	Turks in Asia Put an end to popups!

Firaxis has it tough, trying to appease everyone.. but your right.. Spain should of been in the game right fom the begining... oh well, better late than never!

Captial of Central Asian Turks? Samarkand, Tashkent, I would even go further North East.

	14-08-2002 09:39									#18
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Interesting. I tried making this customized game in Civ 2 that featured the Byzantines, the Turks, and the Arabs, with just the edge of Carhaginian power thrown in for good measure. Anyway the Arabs grew too powerful, and when I captured Baghdad the Turks split into loyal and rebel factions, represented by the Mongols. Don't the Mongols have all those cities you mentioned in their dominion?? If you had a game with the mongols in it how would you differentiate?

	14-08-2002 09:44									#19
	Mongols and Turks Full PM-box? Change here!

Genghis Khan united more than just Mongols, he also united the Turkc tribes of Mongolia.

Both Civs are side by side.. the Turks a little more west...
dont get me throw these two besides eachother and you got serious fighting action going on.. sometimes though the Mongols focus on China where the Turks focus on the Persians...

Mongols eventually had lots of cities in their realm
but not those... not in the begining anyway..

	21-08-2002 23:59									#20
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

The game of civs has alkways played fast and lose with what one can consider a civ.

after all, Beijing was not the original capitol of Chinese culture, so why should it be the capitol of the chinese civ?

Putting in the Ottomans- and not the turks, is a central decision- if you look at the civs in the game, most are chosen to represent certain political structures more then enthographic structures: Rome, Carthege, Babylon: these were all political structures as much as they expresions of specific group dynamics. Even civs like the Chinese, Persians, Egyptians are mainly depicted with one point in their political history in mind. Take the Persians: tehy have had a 3500 year history, but fixaris dint choose to include cestiphon, the capitol of the Persian kings from the late Roman period to before the fall of Persia to the Arabs, in the city list. Why not? becuse the Persia in the game not only represent all the history of Persia, buit mainly the history we get from thucydides, that which comes from Persepolis.

The same is true for the Turks: they may head from Central Asia, and they many have created various empires, both there and in the middle east, but the dynasty begun by Osman reached the greatest power and fame: thats the Period Fixaris chose, and thus the one that will be in the game.

	23-08-2002 23:51									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Ottoman empre woud have been bigger i think myself way
if one general attacked vienna when it was weak not waiting 3 days so that the polsih army coud attack from behind
and the tartars that shood have gaurded the back didn`t do that they went away
if they conquerd vienna they woud have conquerd germany i think and france
maybee spain

	24-08-2002 00:24									#22
	Ottomans were internally weak Suffering from ads?

Kara Mustapha the General you speak of, made a great mistake, he was utterly unprepared for the Polish army coming up from behind. They say the Ottomans breached the walls of Vienna but that he held his troops back - don't ask me why - maybe destiny.

The Ottomans though even if they took Vienna or not were weak... Europe had discovered the new world, and with the influx of gold inflation hit the Ottoman empire hard... I think there were serious structure flaws within the system, taxes, laws, military (Janissaries)... Only one Sultan came close to reform and they had him killed, Sultan Selim III...

anyhow, my question is and always will be, why didn't the Ottomans send ships to explore the new world? Wasn't it obvious to them that the reason for the inflation was all the gold the Europeans were pumping into the markets? A strong economy ususaly translates into a strong empire, the Ottomans proved to be incapable of competing with the Europeans on the economic front... (also I forgot to mention, their finances were further depleted because the Europeans found alternate routes to the East, the Silk route, spice trade - which was a major source of income for the Ottomans.

my 2 cents.

	24-08-2002 05:51									#23
	Tired of ads?

I agree with teturkhan.

However you must keep in mind that civ3 represents the general history of the civilizations it includes.So while the Turks were barbarians from central Asia, they made their impact on the world when they appeared at around 1000AD in the Middle east and made contact with the Eastern Roman Empire.

The Turkish capitol should be Constantinople as their leader should be Osman.Moreover i believe that is why fireaxis preffered to name the civ Ottomans instead of Turks ,since it was the Ottomans who appeared in the Middle East and interacted with Europe,not all of the Turkish tribes.

I believe the Turkish races reached as far as Finland, does that makes them Scandinavian?

	24-08-2002 15:23									#24
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

the etruskians in notheren Itali before the Roman empire conquerd it all where turkish

	26-08-2002 19:26									#25
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

The idea of adding Mongols and Turks is just for fulling Asia.

	07-12-2002 20:21									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Personally i would prefer the name Turks/Turkish/Turkey. Leader should be Sulayman since the Turks was strongest under his leadership. Additional army leaders should be Alp Arslan, Bilge Kagan and Ataturk. Sipahi emerges late in the game i think that it existed before Cavalary. When Cavalary was "discovered" the ottomans was already in decline. Golden Age of the ottomans and sipahi was during the 1300s, 1400s and early 1500s. The turkish Civ should get Sipahi when Gunpowder is discovered and it should cost something like 70 and have the ratings A/D/M 5/3/2. Thats what i am going to edit in Play the World....

	08-12-2002 15:54									#27
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by GePap after all, Beijing was not the original capitol of Chinese culture, so why should it be the capitol of the chinese civ?

Chang-an (also spelled Xiang-an). It was the capital of the Chinese empire during the Tang dynasty, which corresponds with the Chinese Golden Age as represented both in current history accounts and in Civ 3.

	09-12-2002 03:07									#28
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Ijuin Chang-an (also spelled Xiang-an). It was the capital of the Chinese empire during the Tang dynasty, which corresponds with the Chinese Golden Age as represented both in current history accounts and in Civ 3.

It's Chang-an. It's modern name is Xi-an, which is a different name, not a different spelling.

and regarding the topic: unless we're planning to rename the Arabs the "Abbasids" or the Chinese the "Tang" (or the French the "Bourbons"), I fail to see why a name like "Ottoman" is even allowed into civ3.

	09-12-2002 04:41									#29
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

After reading this thread better (sorry for my stupid previous reply), can anyone say me if the turkish countries (the "-stan" ones) recognize themselves as one entity with all the other groups?

Thanks

PS: About if etruscans were preturkese:

1.- this was possible due to the natural top-border of alps?

2.- PaleoRetic (a language romanized but old as etruscan, actually parent of friuli and very similar to occitan and catalan) have a turkish language substratus?

Finally, I want just add that probably etruscan were saharan people emigrated (about 8000 years ago Sahara was a great extension of plains, small lakes and large and slime rivers) more than turkish, there's a scientific study about it? Thanks again.

	09-12-2002 06:20									#30
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by XarXo After reading this thread better (sorry for my stupid previous reply), can anyone say me if the turkish countries (the "-stan" ones) recognize themselves as one entity with all the other groups?

I think they do, in the same way that "Slavs" have a sort of collective identity. But I could be wrong.

quote: PS: About if etruscans were preturkese:

Pre-turkese? Turks were nowhere near Europe during Etruscan times..! If you're talking about Finns, they're a totally different group. The link between "Uralics", such as Finns, and "Altaics", such as Turks, is not conclusively proven.

quote: 2.- PaleoRetic (a language romanized but old as etruscan, actually parent of friuli and very similar to occitan and catalan) have a turkish language substratus?

whoever posted this.... evidence?

quote: Finally, I want just add that probably etruscan were saharan people emigrated (about 8000 years ago Sahara was a great extension of plains, small lakes and large and slime rivers) more than turkish, there's a scientific study about it? Thanks again.

??? rephrase... I don't get you at all.