Expansion Pack Civs Explained: Arabs and Turks

Alexander I · October 18, 2001, 15:29

Here's yet another chapter in the wide world of civ expansion.

We'll start with the Arabs:

Names: Arabia, Arab, the Arabs
Leader: Saladin
Capital: Mecca
Unique Unit: Xebec (Frigate with improved speed and reduced cost) or Mameluke for the die hard AOE2'ers
Attributes: Religious and Commercial

Leaders: ...
Cities: Medina, Riyadh, Abu Dhabi...

History: ...
Strategy: ...

Contributions welcome.

Alexander I · October 18, 2001, 15:32

Names: Turkey, Turkish, the Turks
Leader: Suleyman the Magnificent
Capital: Baghdad or Ankara (Istanbul is in Byzantium's hands)
Unique Unit: Janissary (Musketeer with increased attack)
Attributes: Militaristic and Expansionist?

Leaders: Osman, Barkiyarok, Selim, ...
Cities: ...

History: ...
Strategy: ...

Rosacrux · October 18, 2001, 15:48

About Saladin... well, he was a Kurd, who was raised in a Turk Sultans court... and well, see how hard it is to define who is who?

Seriously, Saladin is a great choice, but you could also consider Nuredin... and hopefully I can come up with a full history on Arabs tommorow (if I can find some time... too much work, so little time...)

jdd2007 · October 18, 2001, 17:19

i think that early cannons over the jannisaries for the turks would be good, and that some sort of fast, medieval, cheap horseman would be good for the arabs...

Rosacrux · October 18, 2001, 18:05

Jdd, many civs had "early cannons", but only Turks had Jannisaries - elite troops consisted of former christian boys taken from their parents by force, converted to Islam and risen to become great fighters.

I think we should stick with AoE this time - you mind the fact they got the right unit in this one?

Alexander I · October 18, 2001, 23:35

Janissary is exactly what we need, a unit that is unique to the Turks. A unique unit! Isn't that the point of such units? Something that no one else would otherwise have?

Any suggestions for other Arab/Turk civ info? Are the capitals and leaders ok?

Anyone up for some history?

Wernazuma III · October 19, 2001, 04:19

Go for Ankara as the capital, Bagdad is too much an arab city, I would even consider it as the arab capital. Narrow the turkish cities to actual Turkey, otherwise we'll have the same city list for arabs and turks.
The leaders are OK IMHO.
As arab UU, let Xebec aside (or don't make it as strong as frigats), go for the Mamluks. Yes, the Saracens were good navigators but the ways of arab expansion were mostly land routes. Maybe we should even consider the arab riders as UU (maybe some other name), cause I think the early stage (7-8th centAD) is a good dolden age for the arabs

Some arab leaders: Nureddin, Al Tarik, (Mohammed)<-- this will probably cause unrest, if we make the prophet a simple leader...

Solmyr · October 22, 2001, 04:44

Arabs

Capital should probably be Baghdad as it's a far more prominent city in Arab political history.

Saladin as leader is okay, other choices: Umar ibn al-Khattab (one of the first Caliphs, launched the Arab conquests), Harun al-Rashid (probably most famous Caliph).

Special abilities: Religious and Commercial/Scientific. This is the same as my suggestion for Byzantine CSAs, so IMO one of these two civs should get Commercial and the other Scientific, to keep things varied.

Great Leaders: Amr ibn al-As (conqueror of Egypt), Al-Tarik, Nureddin, Zengi, Saladin, Baybars, Mu'izz ad-Dawlah

Cities: Mecca, Medina, Jidda, Tabuk, Riyadh, Dhubai, Masqat, San'a, Aden, Muqalla, Basra, Kufa, Kerbela, Samarra, Damascus, Gaza, Cairo (which *definitely* should not be in the Egyptian list), Beirut, Amman, Tripoli, Aleppo, Hama, Homs, Sinjar, Mosul, Kirkuk, Barqa, Benghazi, Mahdia, Qairwan, Tunis, Boudjaya, Annaba, Algiers, Tlemcen, Tahert, Fez, Marrakech, Tangier, Aghadir

History

The Arab rise to greatness begins with the Prophet Muhammad in the early 7th century. He spread his new faith, Islam, among the tribes of the Arabian peninsula and united them into a powerful force. Under Muhammad's successors, or Caliphs, the Arabs swept out of their homeland, defeating the Byzantine and Persian empires. In less than a century, the Arabs controlled a vast area from the Atlantic to the deserts of Central Asia (one of the last conquests, Iberia, was conquered by 711). Only through monumental efforts of the Byzantines and Franks was the Arab expansion stopped from progressing further.

The Arab Caliphate started to show signs of weakness soon enough. In 750, the ruling Umayyad dynasty was overthrown by the Abbasids, descendants of the Prophet's uncle Abbas. Only one member of the Umayyads survived, and in 755 he established himself in the Iberian city of Cordoba, founding a separate emirate. Other areas of North Africa and Persia began to break off gradually throughout the late 8th and early 9th century.

As the Caliphs began to rely more and more on Turkish mercenaries, their own power declined. The murder of Caliph Al-Mutawakkil in 861 by his Turkish bodyguards marks the point after which the Caliphs remain as little more than figureheads. The government of the Caliphate, or what remained of it, was in the hands of Turkish soldiers, then Buyid princes, and from 1055 the Turkish Seljuq sultans. In 1258 the Mongols under Hulagu Khan sacked Baghdad and murdered the Caliph. Although the Caliphate was transferred to Egypt, the Middle East remained partitioned into various states in which the Arabs generally played no significant role. Eventually the Ottoman Turks achieved supremacy, after their conquest of Egypt in 1517, and uniquely Arab states did not re-emerge until the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in more modern times.

(I'm not too great on modern history so someone else will have to write that one.)

Solmyr · October 22, 2001, 05:29

Turks

Capital possibilities: Ankara or Bursa (if meant to portray Ottomans only), Konya (if Seljuqs are included)

Unique unit: Janissary is an excellent choice

Attributes: Militaristic and Expansionist sounds about right

Leaders: Mehmed the Conqueror, Murad, Selim, Osman, Tughril Beg, Alp Arslan, Koprulu Pasha, Sokolli Pasha, Piri Reis

Cities: problem with Turkish cities is that a lot of them are renamed Byzantine cities

But I don't think that should be a problem since Civ is not a historical simulation and the names in the city lists are just that, names, not actual representations of those particular cities. Anyway, the list:
Iznik, Izmit, Aydin, Qaraman, Izmir, Trabzon, Diyarbakir, Mardin, Malatya, Sivas, Adana, Kayseri, Amasya, Kutahya, Denizli, Aksaray, Aksehir, Silifke, Antalya, Erzincan, Erzurum, Kars, Nigde, Sinop, Edirne, Ayas, Bitlis

History

The original Turks were an Altaic people living on the steppes west of the Mongols. Groups of them gradually migrated west, where they often served as soldiers in the armies of Arab princes, and often controlled the government as well.

The first great Turkish state was founded by Tughril Beg, the Seljuq clan chief, who in 1055 conquered Baghdad and was granted the title of Sultan by the Arab Caliph. The Seljuqs ruled over most of Persia, Iraq, and Syria, and in 1071 defeated the Byzantines at Manzikert, going on to conquer most of Anatolia (modern Turkey). Almost immediately, the Seljuqs had to contend with the Christian Crusades, the first of which was launched in 1096.

Already before that, the Seljuq state began to break up, with local leaders declaring their independence. The most important of these was the Seljuq sultanate of Rum, which ruled over Anatolia. The Seljuqs of Anatolia and Persia remained divided throughout the 12th century, fighting the crusaders and Byzantines alike. The first major blow to Seljuq power came from the Mongols, who invaded in the 13th century, conquering Persia and Iraq and dealing the final blow to the Sultanate of Rum in Anatolia.

Turkish Anatolia remained disorganized throughout most of 14th century. In the latter years, a new Turkish power arose in northwestern Anatolia - a tribe led by its chief Osman, who began to gradually conquer and absorb his neighbors with alarming speed. Soon the Ottomans (called thus by the Europeans, after the name of their first leader) crossed into the Balkans, capturing Gallipoli in 1354. They reduced the quickly fading Byzantine Empire to tributary status and defeated the then-major power of the Balkans, Serbia, in the battle of Kosovo in 1389 (still considered by the Serbs a major national tragedy).

The first major test came in 1402, when the Ottoman sultan Bayezid was defeated and imprisoned by the great conqueror Timur. The resulting civil war almost resulted in a collapse of the Ottoman state. But the war ended in 1413 and soon the Ottomans were again on the offensive. Sultan Mehmed II, called "Fatih", the Conqueror, finally put an end to the Byzantine Empire with his capture of Constantinople in 1453. From then on, the Sultans considered themselves successors of the Roman Empire, and their policies of conquest were directed along that line. Selim the Grim (1512-1520) achieved the conquest of Egypt from its former rulers, the Mamluks, in 1517; from that time, the Sultans also assumed the authority of the old Arab Caliphate, considering themselves successors of Muhammad as leaders of the Islamic world. Suleyman (1520-1566), called the Magnificent or the Law-Giver, defeated Louis II of Hungary at the battle of Mohacs in 1526, adding Hungary to his empire; fought the Habsburgs of Austria, besieging Vienna in 1529; and conquered Iraw from Persia in 1534.

After the death of Suleyman, Ottoman power went on the decline. The naval defeat at Lepanto, by the combined navies of Venice, Spain, and Malta, marked the end of Ottoman naval power. Although wars against Austria and Venice were resumed in the late 17th century under the guidance of the Koprulu viziers, it led to no results. Soon the new great powers, Austria and Russia, were pressing the Ottomans in the west and north. Throughout the 18th century, Austria advanced in the Balkans, gaining Hungary, Serbia, and Wallachia, while Russia conquered Crimea. The Ottoman Empire also faced increasing internal instability and revolts among the subject peoples. In 1922, the last Sultan was deposed by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, who is considered the creator of modern state of Turkey.

pithorr · October 22, 2001, 08:09

You have forgotten such Arab cities like: Granada, Toledo etc...
Gibralter could be also good point (Gabel al Tarik).

Rasbelin · October 23, 2001, 11:59

I haven't replied on this topic earlier,
but I'll do it now.

First of all I think those three (or even four)
civs should be kept separated.
The Turks are not the same as Ottomans,
and Arabs are... well, a common name for
Arabian ethnic groups.
The fourth group would be the Kurds,
but they won't be in the game, so I leave them.

I'll post a more deep going posting
on the Turks (Turkey).

The Ottomans are perhaps those are
more significant, so they should have
higher priority than the others.
As their leader, Suleyman the Magnificent
is a good choice. The capital is no need
to discuss; Constantinople.
UU: Janissaries (not my suggestion, but
I support the idea). The history text
was good, so I don't see any need for
modifications on it.

I could attach a city list even for the Ottomans
later today, when I post on the Turks.

Rosacrux · October 23, 2001, 12:15

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!

Rasbelin · October 24, 2001, 12:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Rosacrux

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

Did I say that Constantinople should be the
capital of the Turks? No, but Ottomans: yes.

Quote:

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

BTW, Ancara -> Ankara and Selzuks -> Seljuks.

Trifna · November 2, 2001, 03:24

They were more scientific than commercial. Europe got a scientific BOOM when coming back from crusades. They were highly advanced.

So I'd say Religious and scientific

Eddin · November 13, 2001, 03:19

Arab has priority over Turks IMHO, since the Turks were not such a great factor as the Arabs have been to global conditions. Turks were what you would call conquerors, while the Arabs are more the builder kind. Arabs as superpowers in medieval times have been very much underestimated by many people.

I know it is odd to keep Turks and Arabs unseparated, but sacrifices must be made with only 15 place (and a vote for the polynesians

)

Solmyr · November 13, 2001, 04:39

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 · November 13, 2001, 11:25

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 · November 14, 2001, 05:33

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 · November 14, 2001, 08:32

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 · November 17, 2001, 08:25

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 · November 27, 2001, 05:22

Quote:

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 · March 17, 2002, 16:38

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 · March 17, 2002, 16:59

Quote:

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 · March 18, 2002, 02:11

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 · March 21, 2002, 03:04

Quote:

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/Dail...998033137.html

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Dail...998040840.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...mmayyads.shtml

jasev · March 22, 2002, 14:03

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 · March 22, 2002, 14:13

Quote:

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.