Turks

[Spiffor]

I'm very glad the Turks are scientific. Druing their golden age, not only did they rely on superior weaponry, they also made important discoveries, notably in sanitation (they made the first real toilets).
I'm also glad Firaxis choosed the Spahi as their UU : at last we have some serious cavalry, able to fight against riflemen. Plus, it changes from the janissaries, which are the Turkish UU in every game since Age of Kings.

[XOR]

Originally posted by 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!

The Romans could be expansionist because they expanded their empire, civilization and cultural influence as far and wide as they could. They could be industrious because they were the first nation to ever build so many roads and bridges as to properly connect an empire so large. They also build the first aqueduct systems and many things. Their techniques in bridge building was truely revolutionary and it really takes a lot of credit. They could be scientific, even if science wasnt their major priority they were decently advanced in scientific research and would still keep moving forward (mostly in construction and warfare techniques) rather than stagnating like some others. Additionaly, they were truely apreciative about foreign knowledge so they would assimilate other cultures instead of completely destroying them.

Without a doubt, Romans were militaristic. They were one of the first empires to truely have a long and complex military tradition. The entire Roman society revolved about it's conquest and it's military tactics and tradition.

And, also without a doubt, they were commercial. They had a large merchant network along the entirity of the empire, and since their beguining they were just a merchant republic with a strong military tradition and during their conquest over the world they didnt just have low level trade, they had the same roman coins all over the expansion of the empire. Commerce was like the bloodstream of their power. The main reason of their rivalry with the Carthaginians and the impulse for conquest was trade.

Romans were everything except religious because they were ahead of all their contemporaries in almost every aspect (Except Carthaginians and Minoans, but they destroyed Carthage and Minoans vanished prior to the rise of Rome as an empire, just because of a volcano, pheck volcanoes!). But they were doubtlessly mainly militaristic and commercial.

I would like to see Minoans come into the game, I think I'm going to add them: Comercial, Industrious. UU: Minoan Merchant ship replacing galley but moving faster. Leader: Minotaur :P

[Hagbart]

Trading is part of being a civilization. Without trade with the surrounding world (or within the empire) a civ would not be a civilization imo. So all civs could have the 'commercial' trait.
Give me an example of a civ in the game that was not 'commercial'!

[XOR]

Russians, Chinese, Japanese, Zulu, Mongols, Aztecs, that's 5, not 1, so, good enough.

On the other hand, with the Romans commerce wasnt just "present", it was a big part of the Imperial priority, good enough to be one of the few empires of its age to have a huge internal merchant network and a standarized coin.

The English, they didnt just "have" commerce, the whole point of colonizing far east places was mostly for commercial purposes, that's why they were so much more attached to some colonies while they simply "gave independence" to some others.

The Greek was mostly composed of a federation of city states, most of them were mostly commercial colonies, some of those were communities that didn have any internal product but just traded things from one place to the other. Most of ancient mediterranean Civs, like Rome, Carthage, Minoan, Greek (Minoans were part of the Greek empire, but were so much more advanced and unique) were prioritarily Commercial.

[Palaiologos]

Blue Moose i don't think that Kemal wanted the Greeks and Armenians to suffer: just dead.

The tortures and atrocities were performed by the common Turks, not their officers. Their leaders ordered the Turkish citizens and soldiers to fight the enemy and drive them out. The horrible things were done by the commoners.

Also in your example of the teacher with the electric machine, if its true, the teacher although doing what he is instructed to do he doesn't seem to enjoy it. Even if he does enjoy it it still doesn't make him evil, because a person easily does bad things when he has an excuse for it(he didn't answer properly) and he is unfamiliar with the victum. It seems i know a bit about psychology myself.

You Americans never had an ancestral enemy, an enemy that fears you and therefore hates you with all his heart. In the war of 1922 the Turks cared little about the french and Italians. These were imperialist powers, and sooner or later would be gone from Turkey.

But the Greeks...

The Greeks were there to stay. The rivalry betwwen the two peoples was mileniums old. The common Turks hated the Greeks, and this was not a result of manipulation by their leaders.

[Palaiologos]

XOR how can you say the Romans were commercial?

The Romans had no merchant fleet. They only built their first ships during the first Punic War.

Yes Imperial Rome had a very expanded trade network, but thats something all empires have.

The Mongol conquests brought the east in contact with the west, and trade between China and Western Europe begun (Marco Polo). Trade was encouraged by the Mongols and their Empire profited.

Now would that make the Mongols commercial?

I think not.

[Palaiologos]

And by the way Oerdin did you check the books?

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by Palaiologos
Also in your example of the teacher with the electric machine, if its true, the teacher although doing what he is instructed to do he doesn't seem to enjoy it. Even if he does enjoy it it still doesn't make him evil, because a person easily does bad things when he has an excuse for it(he didn't answer properly) and he is unfamiliar with the victum. It seems i know a bit about psychology myself.

You Americans never had an ancestral enemy, an enemy that fears you and therefore hates you with all his heart. In the war of 1922 the Turks cared little about the french and Italians. These were imperialist powers, and sooner or later would be gone from Turkey.

But the Greeks...

The Greeks were there to stay. The rivalry betwwen the two peoples was mileniums old. The common Turks hated the Greeks, and this was not a result of manipulation by their leaders.

Aye, you know a wee, wee bit of psychology, but not nearly enough, it seems. Ancestral enemies exist only because people keep holding on to the hatred of preceeding generations. That's what you are doing, and you allow that hatred to make acceptable the judgement of an entire people. The turks of the current generation have done nothing to you or the people you know, and yet you hate them for the sins of their ancesters. That's irrational. It's a common enough tendency though, so I am not surprised you haven't risen above it. You should try to do so however, unless you are keen on always haven't an ancestral enemy, unless you want that kind of hate to constantly be tearing at your society.

The turks who committed those atrocities did have the government ok'ing them, as well as the fact they didn't know those people personally either. The ancestral hatred just made it easier (but that doesn't mean there weren't ones that had big problems with what they did). Most of them are long dead though, and you should remember that. It's better to have friends than enemies, and the first step towards that as far as the turks are concerned is to stop blaming them for what their ancestors did.

[XOR]

XOR how can you say the Romans were commercial?

Self quoting.

They had a large merchant network along the entirity of the empire, and since their beguining they were just a merchant republic with a strong military tradition and during their conquest over the world they didnt just have low level trade, they had the same roman coins all over the expansion of the empire. Commerce was like the bloodstream of their power. The main reason of their rivalry with the Carthaginians and the impulse for conquest was trade.

The imperial trade network was larger and better bridge and road connected than the Greek empire in every region where the greeks preceded the romans. Commerce on the roman empire flourished far more than the prior ancient empires as well as more than the later medieval states. I dont know if the Greeks had a standard imperial coin, the romans did, most contemporary nations would not even reach to develop something as crucial to commerce as coinage is. Trade articles in the roman empire would end up traveling unthinkable distances more often than in any other contemporary empire. I dont know exactly if they were from hand to hand or exacltly how but the people of important families in Rome would end up owning objects originary from very distant places from all over the empire.

When comparing Romans with, maybe, the Carthaginians or the Minoans you may doubt that they were as commercial as those other 2, but if you compare them with, say, the Russians, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Mongols and several many others you note that the roman empire's efforts for trade were much more visible, almost every large civ in the mediterranean we know of today was a commercial impulsed Civ. The Tebans, for example, werent very commercial, nor were many of the northern or western barbarians that the romans conquered, nor were the hebrew (until later to middle ages) but the more powerfull ones (Rome, Carthage, Grece) were all commercial.

Now, perhaps what you meant to say was that romans were very poor navigators, I'd have to agree on that part.

[XOR]

And the Mongols didnt really profit from trade, they actually built no trading infrastructure whatsoever, nor was the figure of the merchant a very common one on their society as it was in other societies. The Mongols "profited" from raiding and plundering, but they were just barbarians in the end, they didnt even know how to siege a walled city, they probably never even bothered with walled cities and I have yet to know about a single successfull mongol siege on a walled city. On the other hand, I know about some walled cities that werent even touched by mongols because they were walled. And, those said walled cities didnt "trade" with the Mongols, the Mongols in fact made very difficult their every possibility to trade, if at all.

[Palaiologos]

Samarkand was walled, and it fell after a few days.

True, Mongols were just barbarians at first.They avoided walled cities,had no concept of advanced trade etc.

But that is before China. The conquest of China had one huge advantage for the Mongols, technology.

The barbarian mongols stood in awe of the Chinese technological achievements. They quickly adopted many elements of the superior chinese culture and "upgraded" their battle tactics. By the time they invaded Hungary they were extremely sophisticated. They employed powder hurling catapults whose boulders exploded on impact, their troops wore arrow-proofs made of silk( the silk wrapped itself around the swirling arrow thus mading it easier to extract), a campaign medical corps(Indian and Persian doctors), and so on.

Yes Mongol merchants were rare, if any, but the Empire's officials were Chinese, Persian and Indian and thus trade flowed throughout the Empire. And there was a common monetary unit, it was paper money, a chinese invention (don't know it's chinese name)

[Palaiologos]

Now as for the Greeks.

What do you mean by Greek Empire?
The Empire of Alexander maybe? That lasted only 15 years and it was long before the Romans appear on the scene.

I believe(personal oppinion) that the commercial trait implies that the civ's development evolved around trade just like the Minoans you correctly mention.

The Roman's development evolved around conquest and organization. After the Roman legions cleared the way, Roman officials and legislators came. The Roman continiously built. They built everything: roads , aqueducts, schools, academies, courts, forts etc. Even the Roman soldiers to occupy their time built aqueducts and bridges. Around the Roman forts, cities developed.

Their trade network was based on their road network which in turn was based on military needs. The Romans built roads for their troops, not to promote trade. But a road is a road and cities were connected and trade was promoted, but as a byproduct not as a direct intention.

I was surprised that they weren't industrius. Actually the manual lists them as industrius but the readme file mentions that they changed it.

If the Egyptians are industrius because of the pyramids then so should the Romans.

Organized trade does not make a civ commercial. The Persians promoted trade and organized it but were they commercial?

[Palaiologos]

Originally posted by Hagbart
Trading is part of being a civilization. Without trade with the surrounding world (or within the empire) a civ would not be a civilization imo. So all civs could have the 'commercial' trait.
Give me an example of a civ in the game that was not 'commercial'!

Hagbart here has managed to put in afew lines what took me half a page. I agree completely.

[Palaiologos]

And Blue Moose i can't understand, you are half Turkish, Muslem or something? You people easily accept the Mongols and Huns as barbarians but not the Turks.

Originally posted by Blue Moose


Aye, you know a wee, wee bit of psychology, but not nearly enough, it seems. Ancestral enemies exist only because people keep holding on to the hatred of preceeding generations. That's what you are doing, and you allow that hatred to make acceptable the judgement of an entire people. The turks of the current generation have done nothing to you or the people you know, and yet you hate them for the sins of their ancesters. That's irrational. It's a common enough tendency though, so I am not surprised you haven't risen above it. You should try to do so however, unless you are keen on always haven't an ancestral enemy, unless you want that kind of hate to constantly be tearing at your society.

The turks who committed those atrocities did have the government ok'ing them, as well as the fact they didn't know those people personally either. The ancestral hatred just made it easier (but that doesn't mean there weren't ones that had big problems with what they did). Most of them are long dead though, and you should remember that. It's better to have friends than enemies, and the first step towards that as far as the turks are concerned is to stop blaming them for what their ancestors did.

Let's discard completely ancient history.
Let's just look at the events of the last half century.

In 1953 the Turks violently expelled the Greeks of Constantinople thus putting an end to 2000 years of history. But let's assume that is a long time ago too.

In 1965 and 1974 there was war over Cyprus. But that was before i was even born. So let's count that out too.

In 1982 a full scale war was threatened because the Turks started searching for oil on our side of the Aegean Sea. But i was merely months old then so i was no eye witness of the events.

But in 1996 a group of Turkish special forces occupied an undefended tiny Greek border island. We responded by deploying our fleet. The Turks followed. The two fleets were ready to battle it out at the Aegean when the Americans intervened.

Now could you honestly tell me that the current Turkish generation is innocent of the crimes of the past.

Can't you not understand (no personal hostility here) that national interests depend on the geostrategical goals of the countries and not on the leaders? There is no such thing as "evil expansionist" leader. WWII would happen anyway, Hitler or not.

And when two countries' geostrategical goals colide animosity arises between the two peoples. There is no genetic prearangement. When the geostrategical goals of one country change and thus ceases to be a threat for the other , time will heal the previous hostility.

But that has not happened to either Greece or Turkey.

[Palaiologos]

Moreover i find it imperative to repeat that nations have historical collective memmories.That is what binds them and forges their national identity. Common experiences unite them against their enemies. The past is not so easily forgotten. To forget it is deny your own history, to forget who you are. You Americans maybe find that hard to realize since you are a mixture of many races and religions, but in the rest of the world things are different.

Maybe is good for you that you can view things beyond a national viewpoint and thus be more objective. You are not limited to a narrow nationalistic view and you can maintain your superpower role easier.

I don't know if i made myself clear. I could not find the proper words in English.