Turks

[Palaiologos]

How could the Turks be industrius?

Their greatest structure, the Hagia Sophia, was constucted by Romans. The splendor of their Balkan cities was due to Byzantine administration not Ottoman.

Their only accomplisment that can be considered industrius was the trasportation by land of their fleet at the siege of Constantinople at 1453AD, so as to bypass the impregnable Golden chain that protected the Imperial harbor. But thats about it.

They really should be militaristic.Their military tradition made an impact on the islamic world and combat manuals were written in turkish in those countries.Also the military elite of the Muslim world spoke turkish as their second language.Although they exhibited no special aptitude for military innovation it was their discipline and thourough training ,combined with fanattical belief that made their army so effective at early times.

They failed to expand to the west because of the great technological gap betwwen the two cultures.How could that happen to a scientific nation?.

[Dinner]

In my game they will quickly be changed to militaristic/Commercial and the Arabs will be deleted in favor of the Incas. BTW do you have a source reguarding this Hurvanus Character? I'm pretty sure it I remember from my western civ classes that it was a Bulgarian who first tried to sell his services to the Byzentines but when they couldn't come up with the money he went to work for the Turks. That one traitor set back European civilization by several hundred years.

[Hagbart]

Why would you change the Arabs for the Incas? The Arabs are more important. Instead you could change the Iroquos to the Incas.

OR you could just add the Incas.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Hagbart
Why would you change the Arabs for the Incas? The Arabs are more important. Instead you could change the Iroquos to the Incas.

OR you could just add the Incas.

Last I heard the number of possible civs was hardcoded so you couldn't add a civ without deleting a civ. I would delete the Arabs because they will make five civs centered in the middle east with only three in the entire western hemisphere and none on the content of South America. Deleting the Arabs will easy the crowding in the middleeast as well as fill a vacant spot on the map. This will improve game balance.

[Palaiologos]

Originally posted by Oerdin
In my game they will quickly be changed to militaristic/Commercial and the Arabs will be deleted in favor of the Incas. BTW do you have a source reguarding this Hurvanus Character? I'm pretty sure it I remember from my western civ classes that it was a Bulgarian who first tried to sell his services to the Byzentines but when they couldn't come up with the money he went to work for the Turks. That one traitor set back European civilization by several hundred years.

Yes that's true. But to be honest i don't consider him a traitor. Plus Constantinople would have fallen anywhay i think, cannons or not. Perhaps not in 1453 but a few years later. One could argue that by then the West would have rallied to the Empire's aid, but i find that highly unlikely.

Hurvanus is mentioned in every Greek book as a Hungarian.I can not provide you with an internet link if that's what you are looking for, but i can suggest some books:

I) "The fall of Constantinople 1453" by Stevenn Ransiman, Cambridge University press(1965).
II) "Constantinople 1453" Osprey military , campaign series #78.
III) Chronicon Minus by Sphrantzis. I am not aware of any English edition though.


By far Ransiman's book makes the best reading, and in page 134 classifies Hurvanus as a Hungarian.Ransiman was one of the top Byzantinologists. His death was a severe blow.


I would also suggest Osprey's tittle for a more military view of the siege, plus it offers many interesting tittles for further reading. Much of the information in the book is doubtfull though.

Sphrantzis was an eye-witness of the siege and held an
important office in Constantinople. He miracusly survived the battle,although he was enslaved afterwards.

Happy reading.

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by Palaiologos
Actually a Hungarian Engineer named Hurvanus, constructed the Great Bombard that tore down the walls of Constantinople.

The bastard
But you are probably right. Sooner or later, Constantinople would have fallen anyway.

[Palaiologos]

You know Hungarians played a much more important role in the siege of Constantinople than most people think.

Apart from Hurvanus or Urbanus(or whatever he is called in English), a Hungarian delegation was present at the Ottoman camp during the siege trying to persuade the Turks not to capture the city. The Turks were deadly afraid of the Hungarian army at the time and tried to stall the delegation so as to have time before Hungarians interfere. However the delegation's true goal was to prevent Muhamed from attacking Hungary after the fall of Constantinople. After the Sultan confirmed a peace treaty with Hungary the emissaries convinsed that their mission was a success in a show of good will pointed the Turkish errors in the use of artillery and corrected their coordinates of fire.

However all was not over.At the night of the 27th a rumour reached Turks and Greeks alike. Janos Hunyadi, the Great Hungarian warlord and nemesis of the Ottomans was comming to the aid of the Romans! There were talks among the Turks of abandoning the siege and return to Asia Minor for safety. Muhamed however persuaded his troops for one final assault, one last desparate attempt to capture the Roman capitol.

And on the morning of the 29th the final assault was launched.Heroic and dramatic momments were soon to follow.

And Hungarian aid was nothing but a rumour....

Just look at my quote underneath.

[Palaiologos]

Hey i found it. His name in English is Urban and on page 13 of Ospey it is confirmed he is Hungarian.

Oerdin i think the Bulgarian you remember must be the Turkish admiral Baltoglou. He was a Bulgarian janissary.

He was beheaded when a sole Imperial vessel and two Venetian carrying supplies managed to defeat a fleet of 200 turkish in naval combat.


The Roman vessels were returning from Chios, i think, when they were intercepted by the whole of the Otoman fleet. Amidst the battle the wind suddenly stopped.
The large Imperial cargo ship became the focus of the Ottoman attacks but still the experienced Greek and Italian commanders managed to join their ships and form a battle platform, transforming the naval engagement into a land battle, from which they reppeled all Turkish attacks. The Greeks wore heavy armour and their higher ship offered them an advantage over the smaller Turkish. With their axes they chopped the hands of any Turks foolish enough to aproach. Baltoglou ordered a full scale attack but too late. The wind suddenly turned and the Romans broke through the Ottoman fleet and headed for the harbour under the cheers of their comrades on the walls of the city above. The Turks suffered more than 200 dead (wounded unknown) while the Italians and Greeks about 70 casualties in total(dead and wounded).

The reason Baltoglou failed was that he was a land commander, as a jannisary, not an Admiral. Nevertheless Muhamed infuriated of the escape of the Imperial vessel beheaded him.

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by Palaiologos
At the night of the 27th a rumour reached Turks and Greeks alike. Janos Hunyadi, the Great Hungarian warlord and nemesis of the Ottomans was comming to the aid of the Romans! ...
And Hungarian aid was nothing but a rumour....

Ironically, Janos Hunyadi beat the turks later, in 1456, in the battle of Nandorfehervar (today Belgrade), which halted the Ottoman invasion for a while toward the Christian Europe.
In honor of his heroic defense, Pope Calixtus III called Hungary the “Shield of Christianity” and decreed the bells be run every day at noon in Catholic countries all over the world.
Unfortunately Hunyadi died later the same year from an illness contracted during the battle.

[Palaiologos]

Yeah, i knew about the battle of Belgrade. A truly heroic momment indeed. I think it was the last reverse of the Turks in the balkans.

I did not know about the Pope honouring him though.

Usefull information that was.

[Palaiologos]

And i would strongly suggest the books that i have mentioned above to anyone interested on the subject.

They are the best around i think.

[Hagbart]

Originally posted by Palaiologos
And i would strongly suggest the books that i have mentioned above to anyone interested on the subject.

They are the best around i think.

Maybe they are good, but are they too one-sided?

[Palaiologos]

Originally posted by Hagbart


Maybe they are good, but are they too one-sided?

Hagbart have you seen the books i am proposing?

Apart from Sphrantzes who took part in the battle all others are as objective as it could be.

Osprey is a well known publishing house with a great variety of military books.On the contrary their book is pro Turkish. But still is well documented and well written.

And as for Ransiman, the mere mention of the man's name is enough to end all talks on the subject.

[Hagbart]

No I've have not even looked at the books, I just asked.

[KaiserIsak]

Alright, its impossible for me to argue against all of you, my voice will be lost in your screaming. After all, i did not live during the ottoman reign, and i may be wrong, but i have never in a serious history book seen the view that you are giving to me. The books that supports me are offcourse my history books at school ( written by the norwegian Karl Linné Eriksen), my books "The world by the age of the explorations" (by the danish Niels Steensgaard), "World Markets and cultural meetings" (by Niels Steensgaard), "Europe during the great crisis" (by the norwegian Kaare Lunden), and "the history of the world" (by the norwegian Kaare Valle).
Books which is right on the subject are:
"Der Islam I: Vom Ursprung bis zu den Anfängen des Osmanenreiches "(Fischer Weltgescichte #14, 1968 by german Claude Cahen)
"The Cambridge history of islam" (#2)
"The venture of Islam" (G.S. Hodgesen)
"Muslim cities in the latter Middle Ages (Ira Lapidus)
"A social and economic history of the near east in the middle ages" (E. Ashtor)
"The rise of the ottoman empire" (Paul Wittek, 1959)
"Lineages of the absolutist state" (Perry Anderson , 1974)
"The ottoman empire, the classical age" (Halil Inalcik, 1973)
"History of the ottoman empire and Modern Turkey" (Stanford Shaw, 1976)
"The emergence of modern Turkey" (B. Lewis, 1968)



But offcourse, they may all be wrong, and you may be right.

Originally posted by Palaiologos
The benevolent turkish rule you describe is more myth than fact.

Offcourse there were troubles during the ottoman reign, as in all other reigns, but it is a fact that the turks left the christians alone if they simply paided the (relatively low) taxes. However the taxes did raise slightly after a while, but that is not unique for turkey. In my country Norway, the realtaxes were 28 times more in 1660 then in 1577, and that was the way it developed all over europe. Also on the balkans.

Originally posted by Palaiologos
Many thousands of christians were slain during Ottoman rule. The infamous janissaries were not even Turkish but were violently recruited from Greek orthodox balkan peoples, among them many Greeks, and all those who refused were executed by the "tolerant" Turks.

True, many thousands of christian were slain, but it that unique for the ottomans? What about the serbian massacres, and the american, and the russian, and the german, and the british, and the spanish, and the portuguese, and the danish, and the polish, and the chinese, and the indian. Everybody have been killing political enemies. Its sad but true.
Its is true that the janissaries were christian boys who were raised to become soldiers. They were taken as slaves during military campaigns, or they were given to the sultan as "tax". Offcourse this is terrible, but did´nt the greek take slaves themselves? The word slave is actually the same as the word slavonic (in norwegian it is called slave and slaver). The slavonic territorries was for centuries the "slave depot" of first of all italian merchants, and slavery in the united states was first abolished in the 19th century, so i really can not see that the turks are so much worse then anybody else.

Originally posted by Palaiologos
The hebrews were expelled from Spain due to their cooperation with the muslim rulers, and they all emigrated to the Ottoman Empire where they were promptly given control of the trade so as not to fall in the hands of the christians(the Turks being incapable of managing themselves).This belief of tolerant Turks has been thorougly cultivated by turkish
propaganda.

During the moslem reign in spain, christians, moslems and jews all lived side by side, when the christians took over, the jews and the moslems were expelled. This is a fact, ever heard of the holy inqvision? And as to the "turks being incapable of managing themselves": This sound almost like rascism to me, but i dont know anything about it, and it may be true.

Originally posted by Palaiologos
One has yet to explain, how this "benevolent" rule caused so many uprisings.

Upprisings? i have never heard that the balkans were in a continious uprise during the turkish rule. You can not say that the turks were violent, because you have to compare them to the rest of the world. They definatly was violent sometimes, (like in Armenia, and during the Greek rebellion) but who have never been violent? Anybody heard about the indian "Sepoy"-rebellion? If i aint wrong them it was the peace-loving christian british who slaughtered the rebels here. Btw, it was the peace loving christians who conquered the hole world in the 19th century as well. Oh, i forgot they wanted to "civilize" the world. My point is: A culture is not evil. A religion is not evil. A man is not evil. A culture may have bad sides, and good sides. A religion may have bad sides, and good sides. A man may have bad sides, and good sides. This is a fact. The biggest killers in the world, is usually nice to their parents.
The turks are not more evil then the british, the both did some evil things.

Originally posted by Oerdin
By and large the from around 1900 to 1945 the Balkan states made considerable advances in just about every way we can measure. Economically, artistically, socially, and educationally people were better off in 1930 then they had been earilier under the Ottomans.

This is true, but was the balkans a peaceful place? It is not an inccident that the first world war started here, and if i remember right there were three bloody balkan wars during that time. And the bulgarians fought against the serbs and the romanians again in the first world war. And in the second they once again fought each others. Balkan did prosper yes, (but the hole world did, was it only because the turks left?), but was it a better place to be? We can not answer that for sure, but i would say no. Anyways, it does not matter, my point was that the balkan have never been so peaceful, and i stand for that. And i cant see how it is possible to say anything else. Again: IT WAS TROUBLES ON THE BALKANS WHO TRIGGERED THE FIRST WORLD WAR, so there must have been some unhappiness there after the turks left.

Originally posted by Oerdin
Those problems were diliberately created by the Turks. The Turks didn't want anyone ethnic group to be the majority in any area because they feared they would then revolt against Turkish rule so they forcably moved different ethnic groups in order to insure every group was a minority. Christians and Jews often had there lands stolen without compansation to make room for new muslim settlers. The Turks felt the only way they could hold onto the land long term was to have a significant population of muslims and to have the other religious and ethnic groups fractured into small waring minorities. This is classic divide and conquor and the end result of it was a century of ethnic warfare that has continued from the 19th century right up until the war in Kosovo in 1998.

Never heard about that, but i have heard that the US confiscated the indian land as well, so it can not be unique for the turks. And what about the problems in Zimbabwe nowadays, they would´nt occured if it was´nt for the stealing of land. After all the fact that balkan today is still christian and that spain is christian says something about who is the biggest bad boy here. Again, the turks definatly did something, but they were neither the best or the worst. What i want is a less "patriotic" (christian-patriotic) voice and a more objectiv one.

Originally posted by Oerdin

Before the Turks arrived in the 15th and 16th centuries the area was one of the more prosperious sections of Europe. There were several large and relatively wealthy kingdoms such as the Serb, Bulgar, and Ruthian (Rumanian) kingdoms; under the Byzentines the area had remained relatively well urbanized while Western European cities were depopulated during the dark ages and by the black death. This meant the Balkan kingdoms had more Churches, Cathedrals, and Univeristies then any were else in Europe until the Rennisiance. When the Turkish armies conquored the area they destroyed or closed most of these because they belived the strong national Churches and the educated elites would attempt to resist Turkish rule.

The balkans had already been stagnating for years before the turks arrives. And it was´nt at all peaceful before the turks arrived. During the battle of Kosovo in 1389, all the people of the balkans were beaten by the turks. But it was no clear peace between the balkan “allies” either, and especially the albanians and the serbs were very hostile to each other. And they did fight each other both before, and after the great battle.

Originally posted by Oerdin


Until they were forcably converted the Albanians were always Catholic. The Hungarians and the Croats are the only Catholic people of the Balkans today. The Crusader kingdom was a short lived event the didn't control much territory beyond the Bosporous and the City of Constantinople itself plus it ended something like two hundred years before the Turkish conquest. To try and use that as an excuse to justify Turkish aggression is neither historically accurate nor responsible.

The princes of the balkans did do steps towards catholism, and the ordinary people of the balkans stayed greek-ortodox. And when the turks declared themselves as the defenders of the greek-ortodox faith, they were welcomed by many ordinary peoples, and the fight against them was left to the over-class alone. Btw i am not justifying turkish aggression, i just want us to be objective.

Originally posted by Oerdin

Also if you still think Turks were great guys who just helped people then try looking up information on how the Turks commited the first modern act of genocide when they set out to systematically exterminate the Armenians. While you're at it you can read about how ethnic Greeks were "ethnically cleansed" from lands their people had owned for over two thousand years.

This is true. And it is sad. But it is happening everywhere (the indians of the us, the palestinians, the taters of russia, the vietnamese of southern china, the moors of spain). It is very sad that we humans are doing so much evil, but at least it is not only one race (as you say) or one religion that do evil things. It is them all. Remember the greeks also colonized anatolia once, and there lived people there before them, so they dont have a white sheet of paper either. And all the turks of Greece were thrown out as well. They had´nt been there for two thousand years, but they were born there, and they felt it was their home. Turkey was unfamiliar for them. Greece was familiar. What is the worse: to throw someone out that have lived there for 2000 years, or to throw someone out that have lived there for 200?

Originally posted by Oerdin



They did these only as consessions to end rebellions and they often revoked those rights just as soon as they regained the upperhand militarially. For a well written history of the Balkans try reading the book "Balkan Ghosts". I think you will find many interesting bits of history which our modern, leftest, "westerners are evil" history books gloss over.

Westerners are not evil. They are humans. And do good and evil things. unfortunatly the westerners have had quiet much power during the last years, and have therefore been able to do more evil things then others. And by the way, it is strange that all that reads history turn into lefties.

Originally posted by Oerdin



The Muslims conquored and forcably converted the Christians of Asia minor, the eastern mediteranian (except Lebonnon), Egypt, & North Africa. The reduced the people of Spain & Portugal to serf beheld to Muslim overlords and they attempted to invade Austria, France, and Hungrary. The Christian attempts to removed the Muslim invaders from Iberia was nothing more then a logical response to Muslim aggression. Sure it was mean and brutile but I understand why they did it and I think most people would fight fire with fire when faced with vicious invading armies.

Yeah, and the christians have held the territory always, because god gave it to them, right? The christians were bad when they conquered asia minor and the moslems were bad when they conquered it. But who was the most brutal??? We all know the answer to that, it is as you say the christians. No other religion have ever had anything as brutal as the christian inquision and witch-burning in the middle ages. I know quiet much of their methods, and it makes everything we can thing of as a painful death a joy. Was the christians of the near east forceably converted? No. They were not. Moslems were not taxated, but that was the only thing did to “forceably” convert the christians.

Originally posted by Oerdin




Now your quoting the usual cultural relativism agrument which has been proven false time and time again. The truth is the Turks really were worse then just about everyone else and they were less open to religious freedom. However, in many of there subjegated territories Muslims were a minority and they were continually faced with rebellions so they were forced to sometimes give religious freedoms in order to retain control. These freedoms were very often taken away as soon as they had the military forces to do so.

Its wonderful talking to you. True, true, true. Ever heard of Xavier? Ever heard of Pizzaro? Ever heard of Cortes? Ever heard of the United Nation of America? Ever heard of Olav the “holy”? Ever heard of Slobodan Milosevic? I think we can conclude that the turks are the worst. They are the only mass murderers of the world. At least they are one step over the others.
A culture is not bad, a man may do bad things. That is what i have to say about that.

Originally posted by Tiberius

They needed quite a few years to recover, and after that (between the 2 world wars) the region made considerable advances, just like Oerdin said it. It is another story that later they became (generally against their will) communist countries and because of that were thrown back with decades (at least) in their developement.
Btw, the turks didn't leave Turkey, did they? So, tell me, how the development have gone in Turkey, with the turks still there?

I can tell you. Hungary was one of Europe's most powerful and well developed kingdom before the ottomans conquered it. After the turks were beaten out, they needed 200 years to recover and when finally the country was developing and prosperous again, the world wars and later the comunist era and the Sovjet occupation destroyed it again.
And now, after only 10 years of democracy, they are lightyears ahead of Turkey in development and are joining the EU in 2 years.

There is much to comment here, but i am starting to run out of time. But one things is for sure: 10 years of democracy is not alone the reason for they being ahead of the turks. I wished it was, because then all the problems of the world could easily be solved by the “hungarian way”

Originally posted by XOR
Ottoman traits are shocking.

Ottomans Scientific? Wasnt their obsolete weapons the reason why they lost like, all of their empire in WW1? Amazing.

Ottomans not Expansionist? Ya right, as if they didnt want more lands, they just conquered all they could grab for imperial commerce purposes (as with the Romans and the Carthaginians as well as most ancient mediterranean Civs).

Ottomans should be, IMHO, expansionist, but the Expansionist trait needs some improvement, like cheaper settlers or something expansionist, in order to be useful. Otherwise, I prefer letting Firaxis do it's mistakes and give something else than expansionist to all expansionist Civs.

This one is fun. A nation that once was scientific may turn into a nation that is less scientific in time. China is the best example here, but Turkey is another. Most of the turkish conquests were because they were tech superior on weapons. And the turkish army really was not that obsolete, it was the lack of an large industry that vital. They could not mass produce the weapons they needed. But the one they had was fairly advanced.

Originally posted by Oerdin
Don't get me wrong Turkey is the only fully functioning Democracy in the entire Islamic world but it has a very large proportion of Fundamentalists in its population and the only reason the country hasn't decended into chaos is because the westernized military periodically has a coup to remove the fanatics. The fundimentalists are always trying to ignore the constitutional seporation of church and state by setting up medieval Koranic law.

Yeah, god save the military who really knows how to fix things. And how to kill Kurds.



About that hungarian, well, i agree he was from Hungary, and he was definatly a traitor, because he helped the heretic moslems to win over the forces of the one and only true faith, the christian (=


So the conclusion, the turks were bad, but not more bad then anyone else. They were actually quiet good compared to what their christian brothers did at the same time in Spain, america, russia, poland, india, germany, france, and Great Britain. In other words: Everywhere there were heretics (protestants, catholics, calvinists, moslems, hinduists, or anything else)