Turks

[Kingof the Apes]

I do not understand at all why Firaxis made the Ottomans Scientific/Industrius.

They should be either militaristic/expansionist or commercial/expansionist.

The reason for tis is that the Ottoman empire could only get more powerful by conquering more trade routes to controltrade that went from China to Europe.As soon as they stopped taking more and more trade routes, they started losing money and power. Also, a new route was discovered that led to China from Europe, and the Ottomans did not control it, so they were pretty much 'over', at least financially.
Later I believe they were called the 'Sick Man of Europe'.

[Blue Moose]

Here's some information (perhaps with some small biases, but it seems quite good overall) on the genocide by Turky in the early 1900s.


hmm, looking around on the internet though...it seems like the Turks were fairly kind towards other religions...at least in the middle ages...the early 1900s (at least) they seemed to be controlled by very, very militant and bigotted dictatorships (more or less dictatorships, anyhow), that played upon the worst parts of human nature (unhappiness with their decreasing power in the world, and so forth). Very similar to how Nazi Germany came about, actually. I don't think it is fair to judge the entire Turkish history from this though, no more than it is fair to judge the Germans solely by Nazi Germany. Certainly these were terrible, terribly events, but not something you judge an entire people on (just like you don't judge the founding fathers of America for not fighting harder to outlaw slavery in the constitution).

Here's some more info on the turks I found. Seems like, as some have said, Militaristic and Commercial are the best traits. If they are being based on the Seljuk period. Both seem necessary...you could argue expansionist, but that doesn't quite fit well, and neither does religious.

I'm going to read up on what the Outline of History has to say (it's by H.G. Wells, a good general world history book).

Oh, also...I can judge whoever's frickin' history I want. You can judge mine too. That's how free inquiry and free flow of thoughts and information work. Heck, Palaiologos, you're judging turkish history, when only a tiny, tiny part of that is part of your own culture's history, so try not to be a hypocrit. Though I'm not a christian, I've always liked to think that the bible's "Judge not, lest ye be judged" statement means more that you should be prepared to be judged, just as you judge. Heh, though that's a very errant side thought. The point is that you can benefit from another person's perspective if you keep an open mind...well...often you can benefit, usually you can understand the other person better. Sometimes it can help you realize possible biases you might have in yourself. That's my experience, anyhow. Hmm...I suppose this could be argued a bunch of ways...including this one: the history of Earth and humans is my history, hence I am judging my own history...but that arguement would miss the point IMHO. If we meet an intelligent alien race someday, I think it would be perfectly fine for us to judge their history and them to judge ours. The trick is to make sure you understand all the nuances, interelations, and limitations of the past. A tough trick to master.

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by Kingof the Apes
I do not understand at all why Firaxis made the Ottomans Scientific/Industrius.

They should be either militaristic/expansionist or commercial/expansionist.

The reason for tis is that the Ottoman empire could only get more powerful by conquering more trade routes to controltrade that went from China to Europe.As soon as they stopped taking more and more trade routes, they started losing money and power. Also, a new route was discovered that led to China from Europe, and the Ottomans did not control it, so they were pretty much 'over', at least financially.
Later I believe they were called the 'Sick Man of Europe'.

Indeed they were later called that...but their decline was more due to the increasingly corrupt government and military they had...I think that started in the 16th century, and became worse and worse. At the height, Militaristic and Commercial seem the most appropriate. You can't judge them on their falling years, I don't think. I think any declining commercial empire loses the commercial aspect first, for instance (or at least that goes away very quickly).

[Palaiologos]

Blue moose you have misunderstood me. I think my English were bad.

When i said that you should not judge our history, i meant that you shouldn't speak for things that we Greeks know better(about the Turkish occupation).

Of course anybody can judge anything.

That is the idea behind the Greek Golden Age of classical times.

[Blue Moose]

Ahh, my mistake then, sorry. I am trying to indicate my ignorance where it exists though. It does seem that Turkish civilization did have some things going for it....middle age era Turkish civilization, anyhow (from what I have read). I'd say that being invaded by someone can make a culture have an irrational dislike for them (such attitudes can easily get permeated throughout a society, and people are raised believing them). So that's a concern of mine (and it seems to be somewhat valid).
From what I've read, it sounds like there were times when Turkish rule was pretty good (as best one can expect considering they did take over new lands). Once they'd established order in an area, they let different peoples follow their own customs. Whereas at other times things were very bad. It doesn't seem any worse than say the Romans or other conquering cultures. Admittedly some Turkish rules were, much, much worse (particularly the first few decades of the 1900s). I think Civ III is trying to take the best era of the culture though...or at least they should (they are a bit confused history-wise). Hmm, I think I am rambling now.

[Palaiologos]

And Kaiserisaak i don't think Swedish occupation of Norway can be compared to the Ottoman conquest.
This is ridiculus, not my statement for barbarian Turks.

Norway, Sweden, Denmark, these are all culturally linked nations.

But Greece ,Hungary, Serbia etc were conquered by Asians.

You know if the Turks were really great guys that brought stability and prosperity in a war-torn region why every Balkanian considers their rule as the worst period of their history?

You forget that peoples have historical memories of their past. That is what binds them and forges their national identity. It doesn't matter if you have never personally experienced occupation.

And as for the argument "It was their evil leaders who are dead now ,not the people" it is one we hear often in Greece by the lefts. It seems none of you "objective" and "enlightened" persons can grasp the simple notion that leaders and commoners act in accordance. The most "evil" of dictators will not dare do something that will outrage the majority of the nation.

In 1922 the turks killed thousand of greeks and before that armenians. Their leader's orders were to kill all foreigners. NO turk objected to that. And the horrible ways (tortures, rapes etc) that the orders were executed were a personal touch of the common Turkish people not a direct order.

[Dinner]

I agree that the Turks should be Militistic/Commercial. Religious doesn't apply because they are the least religious of all Muslim states and Expansionist, while fitting some periods, just isn't as discriptive as Mil/Com.

[Palaiologos]

I don't understand why they should be commercial.

Even after the conquest of Constantinople it was the Venetians who took over trade not the Turks.

They should definately be militaristic since as i have stated before, their military tradition left its impact on the Islamic world.

As for their second trait i would suggest expansionist. Once the Ottoman Empire stopped expanding it fell in decline. Every area they conquered they settled it with Turks.

[XOR]

What was commecial about the Ottomans?

I can understand ancient mediterranean Civs like Carthage, Roman, Minoan, Greek, etc were commercial.

I can understand England was predominantly commecial as it's colonies were mostly of commercial nature. (but I dont see how the french were). I dont know much about India so they can be anything you want. But the Ottomans just dont seem any commecial to me.

[Blue Moose]

During the Seljuk period, the Turks greatly encouraged trade. This was around 1000CE-1200CE. They even had a state insurance system for traders and caravans.

Also, they were not that harsh with people of other faiths. Once order was restored in a conquered territory, the lot of those living there was much the same as before.

Hmm, looking things over though.....that wasn't the Ottoman empire, it was an earlier Turkish Kingdom. For them perhaps Militaristic and Expansionist are best....but I'll look into it more.

[Hagbart]

All civs tru history did trade, so all of them could be commercial. Some traded more than others though.

[Hagbart]

The Romans could just as well have been Militaristic/Expansionist as Commercial. But we have already lots of Militaristic/Expansionist civs. It seems like being that was quite popular!

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by Palaiologos
And as for the argument "It was their evil leaders who are dead now ,not the people" it is one we hear often in Greece by the lefts. It seems none of you "objective" and "enlightened" persons can grasp the simple notion that leaders and commoners act in accordance. The most "evil" of dictators will not dare do something that will outrage the majority of the nation.

You just don't understand how people operate. You have a romantized notion that good people don't ever do anything bad, that they can't be slowly tricked into committing acts of great evil. Smart 'evil' leaders know this, and they know that to get people to do what they want, steps need to be taken slowly. Get the people to agree to a small reasonable thing, then a small unreasonable (but related thing), then you keep taking such steps and you can get them to agree to a very large unreasonable thing. This is a simple facet of human psychology.

Also, if President Bush of the United States causes the US to attack Iraq, does that mean that all US citizens are in favor of the attack? Does that mean that even most of them are in favor? No, it doesn't. Leaders can do things that aren't popular, and they often do. If they have enough power, they can afford to outrage a lot of the nation. Or they can simply not bother to inform the populace of everything...paint the facts to look more favorable. People seldom rebel from being merely disgruntled (so changing facts slightly to accomplish this instead of outrage could be very effective).

People also have a disturbing tendency to simply listen to authority. Studies were done in the US a couple decades ago (these studies would now be illegal). In these studies, a volunteer participant was told he was going to play a role in testing how learning is affected by punishment. He read a list of words to the other volunteer, and then had the volunteer recite the list back. When the learner made a mistake, the teacher was to give him an electric shock. The shock would produce a noticeable reaction of pain. With each mistake the teacher was to increase the power of the shock. The psychologist running the experiment would be present, and he'd tell the teacher to continue, that the study must be completed, and other rehearsed lines. The teacher would continue. The teacher would almost always continue even after the learner stopped even attempting to recite the list and just started moaning in pain. The teacher almost always went to the highest setting. The teacher would go there even after the learner had been yelling out in anguish. Even after the learner stopped making any sound or movement, the teacher would continue. All it took was a little encouragement from the researcher, the authority figure. Similar studies were done as well. The further away the learner was, the more likely the teacher would continue (and he'd have less difficulty too). Distance includes things like looking at him through a tv, an so forth. The futher the authority figure, the more difficulty the teacher would have. Nonetheless, the studies showed a disturbing tendency for humans to listen to an authority figure even if they felt what they were doing was wrong (followup after the 'teaching' was over). Of course, the whole thing was a setup, the "learner" was the researcher's assistant, and was connected to no device that would administer shocks, he simply faked the pain. The fact is though, that there are elements of human nature that are just damn unpleasent....elements we'd rather have not be true. We'd like to think that humans only ever do what they want to do, but that simply isn't the case. Live with it. There are things you can do to help people be resistant, but the fact is that it is not an easy thing. Americans love their independence, so they have strong cultural force acting against obedience to authority.....yet they obeyed very, very often. So have some compassion for people that do bad things, and don't blame those that weren't involved (because similarly they have even a smaller chance of doing anything).

Sounds like the left wing in your country has these ideas down better than the right....though this isn't too unusual. Your philosophy seems pretty draconian and primitive in comparison; it hasn't adapted to modern knowledge of human psychology.

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by Hagbart
The Romans could just as well have been Militaristic/Expansionist as Commercial.

Or militaristic and industrious, I think.

[Dinner]

I agree mil/exp would fit nicely but we do have 3-4 mil/exp already. Surely we should make some attempt to diversify the civs CSAs.