-
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.
Ok, I have to ask. What large scale massacre would this be? I don't bring it up to argue, but rather out of curiousity. I am a history major taking a course currently on native american history, and I honestly have no clue what you mean?
Wounded Knee? It was unfortunate, but I would hardly call it large scale. It wasn't that out of proportion to the slaughter of Custer and his men.
I think you might have pulled that one out of your butt
Agreed Sokollu. The Russians expected to trounce the Turks just before the Crimean War, but ended up receiving a nasty surprise from a couple of skilled Turkish commanders instead. There are many many events in the 19th century which give Turkey CBs against Russia and Austria, as well as overlapping CB shields on several provinces.
Like I've said before...I fancy myself something of a student of Ottoman history and think Ataturk (The founder of modern Turkey) could stand to receive alot more publicity from the amazing lengths he went through to preserve Turkey as a strong state in the region.
It is important still, to realize that the Ottoman Empire going to war on the side of the Central Powers was a fairly major event in Turkish history and then to know that there is a series of very real reasons and historical events that led to them choosing that path. One of the bigger reasons was Britain/France's continued intervention in regards to Turks and their minority subjects which soured relations with nearly every European state at a time when Prussia was going out of their way to benefit them.
I'll write up some events after finals, since all my good Ottoman books are at home. I'll post em here for public approval first when I do write em.
Like I've said before...I fancy myself something of a student of Ottoman history and think Ataturk (The founder of modern Turkey) could stand to receive alot more publicity from the amazing lengths he went through to preserve Turkey as a strong state in the region.
It is important still, to realize that the Ottoman Empire going to war on the side of the Central Powers was a fairly major event in Turkish history and then to know that there is a series of very real reasons and historical events that led to them choosing that path. One of the bigger reasons was Britain/France's continued intervention in regards to Turks and their minority subjects which soured relations with nearly every European state at a time when Prussia was going out of their way to benefit them.
I'll write up some events after finals, since all my good Ottoman books are at home. I'll post em here for public approval first when I do write em.
Well what I understood was that when Turks retaliate, with the hundreds of years of prejudice added on, there were outcries in European nations. But when the Turks were massacred, there was no public protest or any other outcry.
Now although this is not fair and right, it is historically true ( and in some cases still true).
The idea is that the European nations and Russia were using the events to attack the Ottomans and claim new land. So basically they were saying that "Oh my god the satanic Turks are killing poor christians, come on everybody let's invade Jerusalem."
My point was that since other nations are getting Casus bellis for these, The Ottomans (and other nations) should get CB s for the massacres of the Turks that the others committed.
Originally posted by Lord Joseph
Ok, I have to ask. What large scale massacre would this be? I don't bring it up to argue, but rather out of curiousity. I am a history major taking a course currently on native american history, and I honestly have no clue what you mean?
Wounded Knee? It was unfortunate, but I would hardly call it large scale. It wasn't that out of proportion to the slaughter of Custer and his men.
I think you might have pulled that one out of your butt
Custer and his men, were soilders, so they died in the battlefield.
Massacres of the Indians were against men, women and children, who were slaughtered in their territory and in their homes.
That's the difference.
You have to understand that when the 1908 Young Turk revolution took place, every major power withdrew their relations with the Ottomans.
The Germans were not a natural ally. Actually they had no allies, and when the war seemed imminent the Ottomans scrambled to get into one side. The English refused, the French refused, Russia's emmisary said "what are you, crazy?". Austria-Hungary refused and the Germans refused. The Kaiser said that the only if the Ottomans brought something that would help the German war effort, then they would accept an alliance. The next day the Germans accepted.
But how?, the Ottomans had no ally and a big war was coming. At this time the British were building two new huge battleships for the Ottomans that were purchased with the donations of the public.
Winston Churchill, Head of the Admiralty at the time, saw the war coming and decided to hold on to these two battleships. Enver Pasha learning of this, told the German emissary that they would be delivered to the German fleet. The Germans accepted eagerly. Once the British anounced that they would hold on to the battleships, the Germans still honored the alliance, thinking that the Turks didn't know about this ordeal.
So Enver Pasha, got the Ottomans in an alliance with Germany, by promising 2 battleships, that were not coming anyway! And that's how the Ottomans entered WWI. ...
Of course... they weren't at war
I understand your point... but there are many instances of native warriors raiding colonies and killing women and children. Was either side right? No, absolutely not. It still doesn't change the fact that these "mass killings" were rarely more than a hundred people, compared with the tens of thousands in Europe... they aren't comparible.
Actually Sokollu, when the British confiscated the Ottoman battleships in anticipation of coming hostilities, the Germans used this as an excuse to get the Ottoman Empire firmly into their corner by then *giving* the Turks two German ships complete with German crews, who did their part to modernize the Turkish navy.
In the 19th century, the Ottoman Empire was continually tottering on the edge of oblivion, it is rather amazing that despite their weakened infrastructure, they were able to fight Russia off (and not always with great help from France/Britian) or to at least a standstill. They performed decently in WWII as well. Better then the Russians and at least as good as the Austrians, despite coming from an inherently disadvantaged state.
Despite this however, the Ottomans were never in a position really to *begin* hostilities, just defend themselves. They would have done better by avoiding WW1 altogether, but thanks to the British/French, they were more or less forced to fight.
In the 19th century, the Ottoman Empire was continually tottering on the edge of oblivion, it is rather amazing that despite their weakened infrastructure, they were able to fight Russia off (and not always with great help from France/Britian) or to at least a standstill. They performed decently in WWII as well. Better then the Russians and at least as good as the Austrians, despite coming from an inherently disadvantaged state.
Despite this however, the Ottomans were never in a position really to *begin* hostilities, just defend themselves. They would have done better by avoiding WW1 altogether, but thanks to the British/French, they were more or less forced to fight.
Please, please fellas don't use this forum as a place to debate long ago, irrelevant events. That is what the History forums are for.
well... they aren't totally irrelevant... except my posts, which i already said were irrelevant.
the others are a genuine discussion... at least I think so... they are trying to decide if they events of real life translate to EU.
the others are a genuine discussion... at least I think so... they are trying to decide if they events of real life translate to EU.
Hrm, it's definitely a touchy subject. First off, I must admit that I'm Turkish, and happen to have a lot of Greek and Armenian friends.
When we speak politics, I tease the former shamelessly...after all it's so easy; just say May 29 1453 on a Tuesday and they jump! I also believe that alot of "Turkish" people living in Western Turkey are actually at least partly Greek. My grandfather's family were immigrants from Crete for example, and they didn't speak a word of Turkish when they arrived in Asia Minor during the population exchange in 1923. They were simply Greek-speaking (Cretan) muslims. And I'm not even mentioning the centuries long conversions from Christianity to Islam through out Asia Minor. Through a bizarre twist in history, Western notions of "nationality" was imposed on a land that was so alien to the entire concept---add Ataturk to the mix and you get a lot of people who became "Turkish" overnight simply because they were Muslim and happen to live within the boundaries of the nascent Turkish Republic.
With my Armenian friends I'm a lot more somber, and careful. I strongly believe a genocide did take place, though exact numbers can be debated---some say more than a million (the one in 1915-1916)
In any case, if AoN's timeline went well into 1915, it should have had an event giving the players an option to go ahead with the massacre or not. After all, the genocide did significantly alter the ethnic make-up of the Empire's eastern provinces. However, since the scenerio ends in 1914, I don't think it'd serve any purpose to include events for relatively "minor" atrocities.
When we speak politics, I tease the former shamelessly...after all it's so easy; just say May 29 1453 on a Tuesday and they jump!
I also believe that alot of "Turkish" people living in Western Turkey are actually at least partly Greek. My grandfather's family were immigrants from Crete for example, and they didn't speak a word of Turkish when they arrived in Asia Minor during the population exchange in 1923. They were simply Greek-speaking (Cretan) muslims. And I'm not even mentioning the centuries long conversions from Christianity to Islam through out Asia Minor. Through a bizarre twist in history, Western notions of "nationality" was imposed on a land that was so alien to the entire concept---add Ataturk to the mix and you get a lot of people who became "Turkish" overnight simply because they were Muslim and happen to live within the boundaries of the nascent Turkish Republic. With my Armenian friends I'm a lot more somber, and careful. I strongly believe a genocide did take place, though exact numbers can be debated---some say more than a million (the one in 1915-1916)
In any case, if AoN's timeline went well into 1915, it should have had an event giving the players an option to go ahead with the massacre or not. After all, the genocide did significantly alter the ethnic make-up of the Empire's eastern provinces. However, since the scenerio ends in 1914, I don't think it'd serve any purpose to include events for relatively "minor" atrocities.
Last edited:
Genocides a bad term for the Turkish actions prior to 1914.
More like 'ethnic strife' which helped sour Turkish/British-French relations and pushed them into the arms of Germany, more or less over the years.
More like 'ethnic strife' which helped sour Turkish/British-French relations and pushed them into the arms of Germany, more or less over the years.
Well that was my initial findings too. But then I read
A Peace to End All Peace .
You should definitely pick it up if you are interested in the region. It is about the peace agreements from 1918-1923, and what they were all based on and how it changed the mideast.
The conspiracy theory is that Enver Pasha already knew about the ships not being handed over. And the author found this out by digging some archives. The telegraph from England came in at the 23rd (of some month, cant remember) and the alliance with Germans were formed on the 24th.
Anyhow I agree with StJaba. We can discuss these in the History forums.
This thread was for the events and I believe we added a lot more than the developers wanted.
One thing, when can we know what events made it, and where?
Better than the Russians??? Considering that Russians captured Trebizond and Kars I can hardly call that better
Event Suggestion
I put this on the Mideast thread too. I was wondering how to handle the Egyptian situation, and thought maybe Egypt could start as a vassal to the Ottomans. Then an event could change the vassalization to the UK.
Whadaya think?
I put this on the Mideast thread too. I was wondering how to handle the Egyptian situation, and thought maybe Egypt could start as a vassal to the Ottomans. Then an event could change the vassalization to the UK.
Whadaya think?
Egypt starts as a vassal of the Ottoman Empire. I don't think there should be an event forcing Egypt to become a British vassal though, but I think that might be a possibility, an event where the Egyptian choice may lead to vassalization.
Agree...
If you have suggestions on what the event should look like Sokollu, pls post them
If you have suggestions on what the event should look like Sokollu, pls post them
Iirc a reason was lending money from the west and letting foreigners construct the Suez channel. Maybe link it with such events?
Hi Vulture
I put about 10 event suggestions in this thread before (in the same post
). Now I don't know how to code the events, as I am merely suggesting them. Maybe if you are interested on some of them I can give you some background info...