Expansion Pack Civs Explained: Arabs and Turks

[Solmyr]

I wouldn't say the Arabs were particularly more scientifically advanced than Byzantines and other eastern nations. A lot of their initial science came from their conquest of more advanced areas like Syria, Egypt, and Mesopotamia, and learning from the native people of those areas. On the other hand, Arab merchants traveled the world from the Atlantic to China and Indonesia, and from Scandinavia to Africa.

So right now I'm leaning towards Religious/Commercial for Arabs and Religious/Scientific for Byzantines.

[PanicX]

The siginficance of turks:

It is impossible to say that turks didn't have a great effect on the current global conditions. Turks (Ottomans) conquered the lands which through the spice route past. This trade route was the only conncetion between the far east and europe and was ver, very significant for the europeans. When this trade route was blocked the europeans turned their faces to the oceans and discovered america, etc.
If it weren't for the turks the world would be at least 3 centuries behind. The current modern European was created because of the fear of Turks, otherwise the europeans would still be fighting in themselves today, just like in feudal ages.
I am still mad at Firaxis for excluding turks again. So now you can compare whether the turks or the arabs played a bigger role in the current global situation. I certainly think turks.

BTW: Are you going to do Turkey, or Ottoman Empire. While both of them are nearly the same, the civ-specific abilities would greatly differ.

[Solmyr]

I agree that the Turks should definitely be in. The AoE/AoK series, whatever else people think of them, have an excellent mix of civs.

[Noyus]

First I must say that I still have diffiCulty in understanding why firaxis removed some the Civs instead of adding new ones.Anyway...About the Turkish Civ and its unique unit:

The name Turk represents both Seljuks and Ottomans and also the citizens of the Republic of Turkey.There are also some other states founded by the Turks before the Seljuk Empire and after the Republic of Turkey.Gokturks and Azerbaijan are examples for both.The names Seljuk and Ottoman represents the name of the founders the states.Seljuk is the name of the father of Tugrul Bey,founder of the Seljuk Empire.And Ottoman,as westerners call it,represents Osman Bey,founder of the Ottoman Empire.The original turkish names for those states "Selçuklu" and "Osmanli" means "those who are with Selçuk or those which are Selçuk's or Osman's"So calling the whole nation or civ "Seljuk" or "Ottoman" will be silly and incorrect.

I think the Turks must be MilitaristiC and expansionistiC.I dont think anyone will disagree.
But I have objeCtion about the unique unit:Janissary.Janissaries were Christian boys whiCh were Converted to Islam and eduCated to serve to the Sultan without questioning his decisions and wishes.They were "Kapikulu" which means "Slave at the door".Not exactly but very similar to that.They were the core of the army and protectors of the sultan during battles.But they were NEVER the main force of Ottoman army.The Sipahis(Cavalry type),which were educated and maintained on the country side by the local lords were the main force.They used to keep the security and uphold the law during peace time.They could quickly be mobilized when demanded.They made them cheap,fast and effective and favorable.Though the sipahis still cannot be the special/unique unit of the Turkish civ.A type cannon must be the Turkish unique unit.Since most of the Turkish victories were won by the existence cannon in their army.Battle of Caldiran is one such battle.The cannons were placed at the back of the center of the army.When enemy began to approach the center,it used to divide,and the divided soldier used to slide to the right and left wings.Then the enemy used to face the massive cannon fire.After that it was easy for the infantry to destroy the remnants of the enemy.
Here are my properties for the Turkish civ:

Names:Turkey,Turkish,The Turks
Leader:Suleyman the Magnificent
Capital:Ankara
Unique Unit:Field Cannon or Bombard Cannon
Attributes:Militaristic ,Expansionistic

Leaders:Sultan Alparslan(Seljuk Turk),Mehmed the Conquerer,Selim the Grim,Sokollu Mehmed Pasha,Barbaros Hayreddin Pasha(Naval)Koprulu Mehmed Pasha,Murad IV,Gazi Osman Pasha,Mustafa Kemal ATATURK

cities:Ankara(capital)Istanbul,Izmir,Adana,Bursa,A ntalya,Samsun,Edirne,Eskisehir,Sivas,Van,Diyarbaki r,Trabzon,Urfa,Mersin,Erzurum,Kars,canakkale,Manis a,Izmit and more and more.Names are listed in order of importance and size.

[Locutus]

A little off-topic perhaps but I don't know where else to post it: a Turkish person ICQed me a few days ago with a question/suggestion about the Apolyton ExtraCivs Pack. Unfortunately my computer crashed before I was able to reply and since this person was not on my contact list (and I don't remember his/her ICQ number/handle) I have no way of contacting this person and answering his/her ICQ. So whoever you are, if you're reading this and you still want me to answer to your original ICQ, you'll have to contact me again, 'cuz I have no way of contacting you...

(This person said (s)he had been following the Turkish/Arab debate so that's why I'm posting it here, apologies for interrupting)

[G' Stath]

Originally posted by Rosacrux
Rasbellin, I think the statement of yours about Constantinople is not only historically inacurate, but also silly.

Constantinople was build in the 4th century AD to be the new capital of the Roman Empire. It was the center of the eastern Roman (Byzantine) world for 11 centuries and it was annexated by force in 1453. The Turks renamed it to Istanbul (from the Greek expression "Eis tin polin", which means "in the City" - City with a capital C was Constantinople).

How does that make it a valid capital for the Turks?

As said by others, if Ottomans=Ancara, if Selzuks/Turks in general=Iconion.

Bah!

:



I agree. This is historically correct. Constantinople should be the capital of Byzantine empire

G!

[Beren]

I think you should make prophet Mohammed leader of the Arabs and Saladin merely a Great Leader. Since the entire Arab culture was built around his ideas (or God's ideas if you are muslim.)

BTW: I would make Mecca the second city after Medina, then Jeruzalem. Then the unholy cities.

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Beren
I think you should make prophet Mohammed leader of the Arabs and Saladin merely a Great Leader. Since the entire Arab culture was built around his ideas (or God's ideas if you are muslim.)

I said this numerous times before but I'll gladly repeat it (it's been a while in this forum). It is not allowed in the Islam to depict Mohammed. Making him the Arab leader would require adding leader pictures of him, which would be a grave insult to Islam (and since there are no pictures noone knows what he looked like anyway, AFAIK).

Saladin is a pretty Western-centric choice as well, but acceptable I guess...

[Beren]

Oh....
Thanks, Locutus.

But then... What sort of title should Saladin been given? Caliph?

What are the favorite and shunned governments?
(Shunned presumably communism, religious as they are.)

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Beren
Oh....
Thanks, Locutus.

But then... What sort of title should Saladin been given? Caliph?

What are the favorite and shunned governments?
(Shunned presumably communism, religious as they are.)

If you want an acceptable 'Arab' leader of the Arabs (and why not?) then you could have Haroun al Rashid:

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/980331/1998033137.html

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/980408/1998040840.html

Or, you could have Umar of the Ummayyad Dynasty, under which the Arab Conquest reached its greatest extent, from the borders with the Frankish Empire to the borders of China in Central Asia and North Western India:

http://www.albalagh.net/kids/history/timelines/ummayyads.shtml

[jasev]

If you need great arab leaders, what about Abd-Al-Rahman I?

He was the last descendant of the Ummayyad dinasty; when the Abbasides killed his family, he achieved to scape. After a long and dangerous travel from Damascus to Spain, he expelled the arab governor and created a new state, independent from Baghdagh, that would last for centuries.

Only a black point: he elected Kurtubah (Cordoba) as his capital, instead of Ishbilliah (Seville) .

[jasev]

Originally posted by Rosacrux
Constantinople was build in the 4th century AD to be the new capital of the Roman Empire. It was the center of the eastern Roman (Byzantine) world for 11 centuries and it was annexated by force in 1453.

Well, not exactly. Did you ever know why the name of Byzantine empire? Because Constantinople wasn't built in the 4th century AD. It was not a creation, but a re-fundation. Of course, the city was greatly improved, but it wasn't "edificated". The previous name of that cit was Byzantium. And the first name of the city was Megara, a greek colony built in the 7th century BC.