Turks

[Tiberius]

1. Leader
So, the leader of the turks will be Osman, after all.
No Mehmet II (or Mohammed II) the Conqueror, no Suleyman the Magnificent.

From what I've found searching about him, Osman (1259-1326) was the founder of the Ottoman Empire. From this point of view, he seems a good choice.

2. Special abilities
Industrial/Scientific ??? Quite absurd, IMHO.

3. Unique unit
sipahi: cavalry with increased attack; 7-3-3.
Here it is what it says on britannica.com about the sipahis (or spahis):

spahi = feudal cavalryman of the Ottoman Empire whose status resembled that of the medieval European knight. The spahi (from Persian for “cavalryman”) was holder of a fief (timar; Turkish: timar) granted directly by the Ottoman sultan and was entitled to all of the income from it in return for military service.

Here it says "feudal cavalry", while in other places it is mentioned as "light cavalry", that fought in the 15th-16th century. Now why the hell is he an advanced cavalry, with attack bonus?

Edited: They are ottomans, not turks! My mistake.

[Bambul]

I think it's a bit late to be complaining about historical inaccuracies.

[Palaiologos]

Unless mistaken the name Ottoman derives from Osman.
He is considered to be the founding father of the Turks.Much like Abraham for the jews.

I think he is the perfect choice.And by the way Tiberius i was planning to post a thread with the same subject myself but you beat me to it ,it seems.

[Slax]

Strong civ traits and special unit. If I get PTW, I may start with these guys...

[Palaiologos]

And i really can not figure out why they made them industrius and scientific.My guess is fireaxis swallowed Turkish propaganda.

They tend to make their ancestors appear benevolent and patrons of sciences.

The truth however is that those barbarians were amongst the most bloodthirsty and expansionist of all the mongol originated races.

[Gangerolf]

sounds like someone has been listening to Greek propaganda...

[Palaiologos]

It is not my fault if you can not accept the truth Gangerolf.

Turks are a scourge of this earth.

[Gangerolf]

hey, i didn't say you were wrong

[Oerdin]

It seems just about everyone, except Albanians & Muslim Bosnians, reserve a very special hatred just for the Turks. From what the Turks did I can't blame them either.

[Palaiologos]

Originally posted by Oerdin
It seems just about everyone, except Albanians & Muslim Bosnians, reserve a very special hatred just for the Turks. From what the Turks did I can't blame them either.

How could the Turks have done anything to anybody?

All they did was to construct places of wonder, erect huge temples and universities and achieve breakthroughs in science.

At least according to official Fireaxis history.

[Iron Chancellor]

Well, they really weren't so bad as long as they were conquering and expanding. When they stagnated and allowed their janissaries unlimited power, things started to get messy.
Besides, one could always point out the massacres of Balkan muslims by rebellious Serbs or the out of control banditry, ransoming and murder of Greek bands of criminals.

[Iron Chancellor]

BTW they ought to be militaristic and either commercial or religious

[dnassman]

Have to admit that the Turks/Ottomans aren't liked at all. The Greeks would have most hatred towards them because of the Turks destruction of the Greek lands and so on. Istanbal used to be Constantanople (sp) which was one of the greatest cities in the world with the largest Greek Orthodox church anywhere. When the Turks too Constantanople this church was converted to a Mosque. This is only one way that i hate them. Maybe this is how they can be considered industrious(bulls....).

There are so many other ways and stories that can be told on how and why the Turks are hated.

[Jethro83]

The Turks definitely deserved to be in this.

However, when I get PTW, I'm changing their attributes since they were neither scientific, nor industrious. Militaristic/Commercial seems like the most fitting combo.

I was also thinking of making the Janissary their UU (musketman of some sort), but now that I know what the Sipahai is, I guess they deserve the place as UU instead.

And BTW, yes, Osman is an excellent choice.

[Tiberius]

Yes, probably the turks deserve to be in, even though you won't find many people in Central, Eastern and South-Eastern Europe who don't hate them. But that's another story.

Obviously the most shocking about the Ottomans are their special abilities: Industrial/Scientific It's a total mistery to me how and why did Firaxis make this choice.
I'd say militaristic or expansionistic would fit them, at least one if not both. If not militaristic/expansionistic then militaristic/religious. I wouldn't choose commercial for the turks, but for the arabs.

[notyoueither]

They threw a dart?

And yes, the various Muslim states were very scientific, compared to their European counterparts at the time. Pity it didn't last.

The focus of Eurocentric cultures will be on how horrible the Turks were, to us. However, they were more than we knew them as.

[brianshapiro]

notyoueither , some arab states were very scientific , however the issue is whether the Turks were. in fact, someone suggested that firaxis got the characteristics for the arabs and the turks mixed, so the arabs should have been scientific and industrial and the turks militaristic and expansionistic. there has been respect the arab and persian accomplishment , the question is about the turks

[themagicbanana]

Originally posted by brianshapiro
notyoueither , some arab states were very scientific , however the issue is whether the Turks were. in fact, someone suggested that firaxis got the characteristics for the arabs and the turks mixed, so the arabs should have been scientific and industrial and the turks militaristic and expansionistic. there has been respect the arab and persian accomplishment , the question is about the turks

firaxis sux so bad, it cant even get history rite.it sux.

[History Guy]

Ah, OK, Magic Banana. If you don't like it, don't buy it's products, but please don't go around saying it "sux".

As for the Turks, I would agree that a militaristic trait would be better suited for them than for, say the Celts.

[KaiserIsak]

Alright, let me clear things up a bit.

First, does anybody care to tell me the how the development have gone on the Balkans AFTER the turks left?
Second, does anybody care to tell me were going on on the balkans before the turks arrived? Alright, this one is a little more tricky. We all now that most of the balkan is greek-ortodox. But after the crusades, many of the balkan monarchs converted to catolicism and changed the official religion (Bosnia, Albania, the so-called "latin empire" and various greek states all changed their official religion). So, the greek ortodox people feelt threatend by the advancing catolicism, and actually praised the turks for their conquest. The turks had proclaimed themselves as defenders of the greek-ortodox church and stopped the catolic advance.
They also lowered taxes much, and left their people alone as long as they payed. The balkans have never been a better place to live then during the early ottoman occupation. And never a more peaceful place.
In 1492 Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castilla-Leon conquered the moslem city of Granada. After a few years all the moslems and the jews were thrown out. But what happended at the balkans? Noone were throned out. The turks gave the moslems lower taxes, but thats it. They also gave the christian territories the right to judge by their own laws.
To Palaiologos--> Learn some history before you speak, Osman is not the founding father of the turks. The turks have a ancient history from long before the ottoman empire. And he is not the founding father of the modern turkish nation, that is the general Mustafa Kemal. So what is he? He is the first person in the ottoman dynasty that is mentioned in the history books (when his troops conquered Nikeia in 1301)

dnassman --> You say Istanbul used to be Constantinople, right, but what used Granada, Sevilla and Cordoba to be? The great Mosque in Sevilla for example, was one of the greatest in the world, today its a beatiful church. Hagia Sophia in Istanbul was once a beautiful greek-orodox church and is today a beautiful mosque.

The turks were´nt any worse then anybody else in this game. My personal opinion is that moslems tend to be less violent, and more open for religious freedom then the christians. Its just that we christians believe that we are so unique. And nowadays, many christian countries are very unique, but remember that the church have fought against the changes all the time.

[KaiserIsak]

My opinion is that the turks should be militaristic and scientific. After all it was their advanced weapenry and orginization who made them so big conquerers. Can´t understand why they should be religious, only because they are moslems????
Suleyman the law-maker should be their leader.

[Oerdin]

If I buy PtW then the Turks will become Mil/Com and the Arabs will be deleted in order to make room for the Incas.

[KaiserIsak]

If there is anyone to be deleted, then it is the koreans, that is my opinion (=

[Amadan]

Originally posted by Oerdin
If I buy PtW then the Turks will become Mil/Com and the Arabs will be deleted in order to make room for the Incas.

Why delete?
There is room for 31 civs + barbarians.

[Palaiologos]

Originally posted by KaiserIsak
Alright, let me clear things up a bit.

First, does anybody care to tell me the how the development have gone on the Balkans AFTER the turks left?
Second, does anybody care to tell me were going on on the balkans before the turks arrived? Alright, this one is a little more tricky. We all now that most of the balkan is greek-ortodox. But after the crusades, many of the balkan monarchs converted to catolicism and changed the official religion (Bosnia, Albania, the so-called "latin empire" and various greek states all changed their official religion). So, the greek ortodox people feelt threatend by the advancing catolicism, and actually praised the turks for their conquest. The turks had proclaimed themselves as defenders of the greek-ortodox church and stopped the catolic advance.
They also lowered taxes much, and left their people alone as long as they payed. The balkans have never been a better place to live then during the early ottoman occupation. And never a more peaceful place.
In 1492 Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castilla-Leon conquered the moslem city of Granada. After a few years all the moslems and the jews were thrown out. But what happended at the balkans? Noone were throned out. The turks gave the moslems lower taxes, but thats it. They also gave the christian territories the right to judge by their own laws.
To Palaiologos--> Learn some history before you speak, Osman is not the founding father of the turks. The turks have a ancient history from long before the ottoman empire. And he is not the founding father of the modern turkish nation, that is the general Mustafa Kemal. So what is he? He is the first person in the ottoman dynasty that is mentioned in the history books (when his troops conquered Nikeia in 1301)

You are right , kaiserisak.I meant founding father of the Ottoman Turks, not Turks in general.

But, it is you who should learn history before speaking. The benevolent turkish rule you describe is more myth than fact. 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. 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.

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

[Hagbart]

Originally posted by Palaiologos
It is not my fault if you can not accept the truth Gangerolf.

Turks are a scourge of this earth.

They are not as bad as the Norwegians..

[Hagbart]

Originally posted by LordAzreal
The Turks definitely deserved to be in this.

However, when I get PTW, I'm changing their attributes since they were neither scientific, nor industrious. Militaristic/Commercial seems like the most fitting combo.

No! Those are the Vikings attributes..

[Hagbart]

Palagionos: You still hate the Turks for what their ancesters did?

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by KaiserIsak
First, does anybody care to tell me the how the development have gone on the Balkans AFTER the turks left?

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. There were problems mostly revolving around race and religion, it was these problems that sparked most of the wars and made the region so suseptable to facism. 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.

Second, does anybody care to tell me were going on on the balkans before the turks arrived?

I spent nearly a year as part of the U.N. peace keeping force in Kosovo and I had an opportunity to travel extensively throughout the region. 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.

I remember visiting the City of Orid in Macedonia where there are the ruins of three castile, two universities, and nearly 400 churches. Before the Turks destroyed much of it the city was know as the city of Churches because you could go to a different church every day for over a year and never visit the same chuch twice. The pre-renniensance art shown in the ruins of these churches is amoung the best in Europe.

[quote]
We all now that most of the balkan is greek-ortodox. [quote]

Actually they are Orthodoxed. The eastern Orthodoxed religion became decentralized as the Byzantines lost more and more of their territory to the Turkish Jihad and the Emporer allowed each Orthodoxed Kingdom to set up their own autonomous Orthodoed Church. Thus most greeks are Greek Orthodoxed, most Serbians are Serbian Orthodoxed, most Russians are Russian Orthodoxed, etc...

So, the greek ortodox people feelt threatend by the advancing catolicism, and actually praised the turks for their conquest. The turks had proclaimed themselves as defenders of the greek-ortodox church and stopped the catolic advance.

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.

They also lowered taxes much, and left their people alone as long as they payed.

You my friend need to read a history book. Let me tell you a little about the history of Albania; before the Turkish invasion the Albanians were Roman Catholics and after the Turkish conquest they loyally followed the Pope's orders to resist the Muslim invaders by rebelling. The Turks crushed the rebellion but they realized the rebellions would keep occuring unless the Albanian's allegiance to the Roman church was broken. To accomplish this the Turkish army began a two decade long policy of seizing the children in Catholic villages. The Children were sent to Turkey where they were raised as Muslims and the males were forced to be soldiers in the Turkish army. They were only allowed to return home after they had grown up and swore allegiance to the Sultan as well as proved they were loyal Muslims. Kidnapping, imprisonment, and forced conversions was all part of the Turkish modus opporandi.

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.

The balkans have never been a better place to live then during the early ottoman occupation. And never a more peaceful place.

The place was almost never peaceful during Ottoman rule because the Turks were always playing the various ethnic groups off each other and deliberately inciting them to fight each other. The logic was if they were busy fighting each other then they would be to busy to join togeather and fight the Turks. Even so Rebllions against the Turks was a very common event and the Turks used those rebellions as an excuse to confiscate Christian owned properties, forcably convert people, and forcable relocate still more ethnic groups.

They also gave the christian territories the right to judge by their own laws.

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.

dnassman --> You say Istanbul used to be Constantinople, right, but what used Granada, Sevilla and Cordoba to be? The great Mosque in Sevilla for example, was one of the greatest in the world, today its a beatiful church. Hagia Sophia in Istanbul was once a beautiful greek-orodox church and is today a beautiful mosque.

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.

The turks were´nt any worse then anybody else in this game. My personal opinion is that moslems tend to be less violent, and more open for religious freedom then the christians.

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.

[dnassman]

Oerdin, that was a great read and proves what I have known for a while.

Also adding one thing I have seen about that region of the world. The Greek people were mainly blonde haired and blue eyes and so are many of the other nations around that area. The Turks are dark skinned and dark haired. The majority of Greeks that I meet in australia these days are dark haired and skinned. Very rarely do I meet the blonde/blue eyed Greek. So pretty obvious how that eventuated.