Ottomans Over-Rated

[leunames]

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....

[teturkhan]

Turks in Asia

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.

[leunames]

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?

[teturkhan]

Mongols and Turks

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..

[GePap]

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.

[tomcat ha]

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

[teturkhan]

Ottomans were internally weak

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.

[Palaiologos]

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?

[tomcat ha]

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

[XarXo]

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

[Yasko]

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....

[Ijuin]

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.

[ranskaldan]

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.

[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?

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.

[ranskaldan]

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.

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.

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?

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.