Oh, ok, that could make things awkward.
...Or maybe not. If Byzantium got to reconquer Anatolia, would they find the turkish people a scourge in their Empire?
- 1
Turko-Semitic or Anatolian Debate
- Thread starter metallicania
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Oh, ok, that could make things awkward.
...Or maybe not. If Byzantium got to reconquer Anatolia, would they find the turkish people a scourge in their Empire?
As mentioned above in this thread Anatolia was a clust... mixing pot of Greeks, Anatolians, and invading (invaded?) turks and to a lesser degree armenians, syrians and kurds. It is entirely plausible that Byz conquireing this area wouldnt be opposed culturally in western and central Anatolia, but would be opposed on basis of religeon, which we thankfully have an entire mechanic to represent.
- 7
That's what I was expecting. This change to Turkish could also allow Anatolia to have more Greek provinces too.
- 3
- 1
I'm sure everyone will be very happy if Turkish gets added to the Byzantine culture group. 
Last edited:
- 11
- 1
What Turks and Arabs have in common is their religion, which is already accounted for in the game. Maybe I could see dominant culture A more accepting of province culture B if both shared a religion.
But absent that, the idea of having both Arabs and Turks in the same culture group is just bizarre.
But absent that, the idea of having both Arabs and Turks in the same culture group is just bizarre.
- 7
I think you and many others are forgetting that as of 1,16 according to today's dev diary cultural unions are focused more on encouraging historical outcomes over the span of the game. Sans Arabia is essentially "stuff turks conquered + turks". I actually like it as a general policy but I feel we dont need a CU of that size on the map for any reason. And Anatolian union solves an entire laundry list of issues whilst still obeying the general principle.
- 2
Ottomans claimed to be a new Caliphate, so that might be why they would be in the same culture group. And after all, they did conquer most of the Arab world.
I created a thread in the Suggestions forum on the topic here, because I like the idea and I want to make sure it goes through.
- 2
The same was true of the Turkish people. Most of the population of Anatolia in 1500 had ancestors living there in 1060. It's more accurate to put the Turkish people with the Greeks than it is the Turks, if we're talking about the local populace who had lived there for centuries.
That being said, is it really desired for Greeks to accept their Ottoman overlords in the same way that Normandy accepts France as their overlords?
- 1
- 1
I'm sure everyone will be very happy if Turkish gets added to the Byzantine culture group.
you mean turko-byzantine culture group
- 4
- 2
But that's religion, not culture. If religion is already in the game (and it is) then we can't take similar religion as a reason to have similar culture. If, for whatever reason, you have your Ottoman Empire convert to Catholicism before conquering the Islamic Mamluks in Egypt there probably would be very little cultural similarity.
- 1
- 1
Ottomans also claimed that they are the new Roman Empire. So now claims do matter?
Ottomans were actually the last Empire to have Roman blood in their rulers:
"...Mehmed also had a blood lineage to the Byzantine Imperial family; his predecessor, Sultan Orhan I had married a Byzantine princess, and Mehmed may have claimed descent from John Tzelepes Komnenos."
Last edited:
- 13
- 2
Putting turkey and the arabs together because they share region, religion, and alphabet is STUPID. its exactly like putting english, french, spanish, german, and italian together because they shared a region, religlion, and alphabet. Come on paradox, theres a much better solution to this.
I think there should be an anatolian group, but at the same time the turks spoke a mongolic language, much different than greek. Just because they share lots of stuff doesn't justify it. In that mindset english should be in a group with the french or danes because they shared foods and words.
I think there should be an anatolian group, but at the same time the turks spoke a mongolic language, much different than greek. Just because they share lots of stuff doesn't justify it. In that mindset english should be in a group with the french or danes because they shared foods and words.
- 13
- 5
From a purely gameplay perspective, it makes much more sense to give Ottomans a Nationalism CB on Arabs instead of Greeks or Oghuz.
- 2
- 2
- 1
No. To quote my post on why this would make no sense in 1444:
"Also, to weigh in on the whole Turkish debate; I understand the Turko-Semetic culture from a gameplay perspective, but I can't say I like it that much. The current Oghuz group was fine in my opinion, and I think everyone was happy with it. However, an 'Anatolian' group that merges Turkish and Greek is not a good solution either, and wouldn't make much sense historically in 1444. Greeks only became culturally similar to Turks after centuries of being ruled by them; Ottoman rule over the Balkans isn't even a century old yet, and there are plenty of holdouts including Byzantium.
Culturally, in 1444, Greece was actually much closer to Italy. Between the dominance of Italian merchants, the Italian holdings across Greece that had been there for centuries, the fact that Byzantium depended on Italian states so heavily in its last days, a revived philhellenism that was sweeping the Italian Peninsula, and that the Byzantines tried to uphold the Council of Florence which superficially mended the Schism, shows that Greece was far closer to Italy culturally than the Turks (Cyprus is a prime example; whose population became so influenced by Western styles that Cypriot is deserving of being a culture of its own). Most interactions that happened with the Turks before 1453 were based off realpolitik and a desire to survive, such as strategic marriages, and not cultural closeness.
If Byzantium did survive and reconquer Greece, previous circumstances and events would have seen it gravitating towards Italy, not the Turks. And while folding the Greek Cultures into the Latin Group is out of the question, it would make more sense from a strictly historical perspective. In fact, it was actually Ottoman Policy to encourage the closer ties with the Greek Population (such as appointing the anti-Unionist Gennadius Scholarius as Ecumenical Patriarch in the aftermath of the Fall of Constantinople), or at the very least discourage ties with the west, so that they would be less inclined to turn to them for more help - as the Byzantines were so apt to do.
If EU4 started off in 1453 or 1492, then an Anatolian group would make a bit more sense, as most or all of Greece would start off under Ottoman rule and events would have taken a turn in their direction (this still fails to take into account the Italian possessions in Greece, and their populations would still gravitate towards Italy), but as long as it starts off with an independent Byzantium that had been seeking help and interacting with the Italians for quite some time, and noticeable Italian holdings across Greece, then it wouldn't make much sense."
Furthermore, the Ottomans already get bonus' to cultural acceptance and are probably the most consistently powerful nation in game outside of PLC. They can do with being a bit isolated culturally.
Likewise, Muslim Greeks were counted as Turks for all intents and purpose by the Ottomans, and generally assimilated into Turkish culture within a generation or two, while the Greek population in Anatolia had been almost completely decimated in 1444 by constant wars, oppressive Beyliks and Timur, leaving the peninsula to be resettled by Turks. There was also no massive mixing of between cultures before 1453; in fact, one of the favorite strategies of the Komnenoi was to relocate Greeks living in Rum-owned Anatolia while on campaigns of reconquest back into mainland Greece to both repopulate the Empire and deprive Rum of a source of tax material. By the time of Rum's collapse, Greek presence in Anatolia was at a minimum, and the local beyliks that arose tended to be much harsher on the local minorities, resulting in an even more diminished Greek population and an increased Turkish one by any number of factors. It wasn't until the complete dominance of Anatolia by the Ottomans that, ironically, the Greek presence there experienced a resurgence.
In short, it would not be more realistic or historical in 1444 - the only advantages would be gameplay, and it just seems like an unnecessary buff to the Ottomans. It's also noteworthy that the Byzantines were quite xenophobic, and undoubtedly begrudged the Ottomans after nearly a century of constant attacks, and would have hardly been that tolerant of a large Turkish population in any possible resurgent borders - let alone accepted them at 1444, which they would due to being an empire (now, Byz players will usually end up accepting Turkish culture anyways upon reconquering Asia Minor due to game mechanics, but I digress).
I, personally, just want Oghuz back.
The Osman claims to Komnenoi descent have been heavily disputed by historians and cannot be verified either - and there's a very good chance that they were fabricated to give further legitimacy to their claim (or delusion, depending on who you talk to) as being the rightful heir to Rome.
The Russian claims to Imperial descent, on the other hand, are irrefutable.
"Also, to weigh in on the whole Turkish debate; I understand the Turko-Semetic culture from a gameplay perspective, but I can't say I like it that much. The current Oghuz group was fine in my opinion, and I think everyone was happy with it. However, an 'Anatolian' group that merges Turkish and Greek is not a good solution either, and wouldn't make much sense historically in 1444. Greeks only became culturally similar to Turks after centuries of being ruled by them; Ottoman rule over the Balkans isn't even a century old yet, and there are plenty of holdouts including Byzantium.
Culturally, in 1444, Greece was actually much closer to Italy. Between the dominance of Italian merchants, the Italian holdings across Greece that had been there for centuries, the fact that Byzantium depended on Italian states so heavily in its last days, a revived philhellenism that was sweeping the Italian Peninsula, and that the Byzantines tried to uphold the Council of Florence which superficially mended the Schism, shows that Greece was far closer to Italy culturally than the Turks (Cyprus is a prime example; whose population became so influenced by Western styles that Cypriot is deserving of being a culture of its own). Most interactions that happened with the Turks before 1453 were based off realpolitik and a desire to survive, such as strategic marriages, and not cultural closeness.
If Byzantium did survive and reconquer Greece, previous circumstances and events would have seen it gravitating towards Italy, not the Turks. And while folding the Greek Cultures into the Latin Group is out of the question, it would make more sense from a strictly historical perspective. In fact, it was actually Ottoman Policy to encourage the closer ties with the Greek Population (such as appointing the anti-Unionist Gennadius Scholarius as Ecumenical Patriarch in the aftermath of the Fall of Constantinople), or at the very least discourage ties with the west, so that they would be less inclined to turn to them for more help - as the Byzantines were so apt to do.
If EU4 started off in 1453 or 1492, then an Anatolian group would make a bit more sense, as most or all of Greece would start off under Ottoman rule and events would have taken a turn in their direction (this still fails to take into account the Italian possessions in Greece, and their populations would still gravitate towards Italy), but as long as it starts off with an independent Byzantium that had been seeking help and interacting with the Italians for quite some time, and noticeable Italian holdings across Greece, then it wouldn't make much sense."
Furthermore, the Ottomans already get bonus' to cultural acceptance and are probably the most consistently powerful nation in game outside of PLC. They can do with being a bit isolated culturally.
Likewise, Muslim Greeks were counted as Turks for all intents and purpose by the Ottomans, and generally assimilated into Turkish culture within a generation or two, while the Greek population in Anatolia had been almost completely decimated in 1444 by constant wars, oppressive Beyliks and Timur, leaving the peninsula to be resettled by Turks. There was also no massive mixing of between cultures before 1453; in fact, one of the favorite strategies of the Komnenoi was to relocate Greeks living in Rum-owned Anatolia while on campaigns of reconquest back into mainland Greece to both repopulate the Empire and deprive Rum of a source of tax material. By the time of Rum's collapse, Greek presence in Anatolia was at a minimum, and the local beyliks that arose tended to be much harsher on the local minorities, resulting in an even more diminished Greek population and an increased Turkish one by any number of factors. It wasn't until the complete dominance of Anatolia by the Ottomans that, ironically, the Greek presence there experienced a resurgence.
In short, it would not be more realistic or historical in 1444 - the only advantages would be gameplay, and it just seems like an unnecessary buff to the Ottomans. It's also noteworthy that the Byzantines were quite xenophobic, and undoubtedly begrudged the Ottomans after nearly a century of constant attacks, and would have hardly been that tolerant of a large Turkish population in any possible resurgent borders - let alone accepted them at 1444, which they would due to being an empire (now, Byz players will usually end up accepting Turkish culture anyways upon reconquering Asia Minor due to game mechanics, but I digress).
I, personally, just want Oghuz back.
The Osman claims to Komnenoi descent have been heavily disputed by historians and cannot be verified either - and there's a very good chance that they were fabricated to give further legitimacy to their claim (or delusion, depending on who you talk to) as being the rightful heir to Rome.
The Russian claims to Imperial descent, on the other hand, are irrefutable.
- 10
- 9
- 1
No they weren't. The Safavids, Romanovs and probably dozens of others were all descendants of Byzantine royalty. The Byzantines may have tried to restrict the practice of marrying their princesses outside the realm, but political considerations always came first.
- 5
- 2
Closer than to western/central Antaolia? I don't think so. They had close diplomatic ties to italy (or tried to get them anyway), but to say that people of Edrine were closer to Venetians than to folks from Biga across the strait is.. simply untrue. The ruling class was definitely on the Italy bandwagon for obvious self preservation reasons, but your assertion that it makes sense in 1453 but not in 1444 shows that we think about cultures in a different manner. I for one don't think 10 years can alter culture of population one way or the other without resorting to outright cultural purges. And true - ottomans did their damnest to separate greek from the west. Remember CUs of 1.16 aren't based on prior history but on the history of 1444-1821, otherwise most of them seize to make sense. Otto doesn't need the buff but having 2 cultures (Greek and Turkish) just left out there surrounded by unions seems strange.
Please don't frame this as anything but educated guess. If Byz reconquered anatolia it's entirely plausible that they would adopt policies not unlike the ottoman ones that but aimed at separating anatolia from arabian world.
And the reverse of course would be impossible because...
Byzantine behaviour of relocating greeks makes sense from perspective of a country desparate for population, I doubt they would continue this policy if they were capable of actually holding control of anatolia, You know - like ottomans did when they conquered greece.
- 11
- 3
- 1
im syrian and syrians share only religion with turks (even tho in 1444 syria had more christians than what the game repressent) and for arabic culture its basically disrespect to say syrians and egyptians were under arabic culture, its like saying italian culture is close to russian, i believe arabic culture or bedoun (which means uncivillized) should only be in todays saudi arabia and neighboor states.
couldnt there be semetic cultural union? why naming it arabic? 1444 syrians spoke more syrian than arabic and i know pdx willchange cultures to not represent language then how did they come up with the "arabic cultural union"
couldnt there be semetic cultural union? why naming it arabic? 1444 syrians spoke more syrian than arabic and i know pdx willchange cultures to not represent language then how did they come up with the "arabic cultural union"
- 5
- 3
About the nationalism CB: When Union&Progress party came to power in OE early 20th Century and adopt the "Turan" (unification of Turks) ideal, they marched through Baku (Shirvan) and conquered during WWI.
This is of course 90 years after EUIV ends.
This is of course 90 years after EUIV ends.
- 1
I believe between this and ryazanian culture - it's simply shows how much historical data paradox have to shift through and they make mistakes, that can be oft perceived as slights, whilst in reality it's just them being imperfect i.e human. Have you considered starting a suggestion topic for this name change? From Arabic to Semetic that is.
- 1
- 1