Byzantium and the Ottomans

[Beylerbeyi]

The Ottomans had Turkish, Greek, Slavonic as state cultures in EUII, which was historically correct and made gameplay sense.

In EUIII, however, they have Turkish and Arabic cultures, which makes neither historical nor gameplay sense.

Ottomans were founded on Byzantine heartland land near Constantinople, and expanded towards them from day one. They ruled over Byzantines and converts. They were related to the Byzantine noble families and involved in their politics. They adopted Byzantine traditions and institutions. They took over the Byzantine geopolitics and "mission" and ruled over Byzantine lands with ease. All Ottoman historians consider them locals, not outsiders to the Byzantine world. In comparison, they started ruling the Arab lands more than two centuries after their foundation (founded 1300s, expansion into Arab lands after 1510s). Ottoman rule of the Arab lands was also indirect, while they ruled Balkans and Anatolia directly. Same with the ruling classes. Almost all rulers came from the Balkans and Anatolia and very very few were Arabs.

As such Turkish should be in the same culture group as Greek, Bulgarian, Albanian, Serbian, Armenian etc, and the culture group should be called Byzantine. This change would not only be historically accurate, but also help the Ottomans (who performed miserably both in EUII and EUIII) perform better in the game and make Byzantine fanboys happy at the same time.

Failing this, Turkish should be in the same culture group as Tatar. That makes infinitely more historical sense than Arabic, given their relations with the Crimeans.

 

[unmerged(612669)]

The Ottomans had Turkish, Greek, Slavonic as state cultures in EUII, which was historically correct and made gameplay sense.

In EUIII, however, they have Turkish and Arabic cultures, which makes neither historical nor gameplay sense.

Ottomans were founded on Byzantine heartland land near Constantinople, and expanded towards them from day one. They ruled over Byzantines and converts. They were related to the Byzantine noble families and involved in their politics. They adopted Byzantine traditions and institutions. They took over the Byzantine geopolitics and "mission" and ruled over Byzantine lands with ease. All Ottoman historians consider them locals, not outsiders to the Byzantine world. In comparison, they started ruling the Arab lands more than two centuries after their foundation (founded 1300s, expansion into Arab lands after 1510s). Ottoman rule of the Arab lands was also indirect, while they ruled Balkans and Anatolia directly. Same with the ruling classes. Almost all rulers came from the Balkans and Anatolia and very very few were Arabs.

As such Turkish should be in the same culture group as Greek, Bulgarian, Albanian, Serbian, Armenian etc, and the culture group should be called Byzantine. This change would not only be historically accurate, but also help the Ottomans (who performed miserably both in EUII and EUIII) perform better in the game and make Byzantine fanboys happy at the same time.

Failing this, Turkish should be in the same culture group as Tatar. That makes infinitely more historical sense than Arabic, given their relations with the Crimeans.

I would agree with most of what you said but three points.

1. Byzantine men were never allowed to wed Turkish Noblewomen without a conversion
2. Gameplaywise to be secure against the Memelukes you need to a historically expand in both directions at once to neutralize them so the arabic culture being accepted helps a lot.
3. Your chosen name doesn't describe the culture group because the Tatars don't fit into Byzantine yet do fit into Turks; you opened a gordian not here thanks to Tatars.

 

[Avrelianvs]

As such Turkish should be in the same culture group as Greek, Bulgarian, Albanian, Serbian, Armenian etc, and the culture group should be called Byzantine. This change would not only be historically accurate, but also help the Ottomans (who performed miserably both in EUII and EUIII) perform better in the game and make Byzantine fanboys happy at the same time.

I mostly agree, exept with this. Greeks, Bulgarians, Albanians, Serbians, Armenians etc. ARE NOT in the same culture group (exept Bulgarians and Serbs, I guess) unless you are talking about the Indo-European common origin of all this populations, which, IFAIK wasn't considered in the game. If you consider IE origin, then turks do not fit, since they are not IE (although, I admit the Ottoman Empire was basically a turkish version of the Bizantine Empire).

Failing this, Turkish should be in the same culture group as Tatar. That makes infinitely more historical sense than Arabic, given their relations with the Crimeans.

I agree.

 

[grommile]

The reasons the Ottomans perform abysmally under AI control relate more to the AI, than to their position. The Ottomans have a wonderful (if somewhat challenging out-of-the-gate) position in EU3... but the AI is completely incapable of taking advantage of it, because for some reason it refuses to declare (and then competently conduct) Reconquest wars against those tiny minors of its own primary culture on which it has 100% cores, and then shuffle its NF around to erase those countries' own cores forever.

 

[Fishman786]

The reasons the Ottomans perform abysmally under AI control relate more to the AI, than to their position. The Ottomans have a wonderful (if somewhat challenging out-of-the-gate) position in EU3... but the AI is completely incapable of taking advantage of it, because for some reason it refuses to declare (and then competently conduct) Reconquest wars against those tiny minors of its own primary culture on which it has 100% cores, and then shuffle its NF around to erase those countries' own cores forever.

The EUIII AI is unlikely to attack countries of the same culture or religion, especially if there are nearby foreigners or infidels to attack instead. This is also something that causes the massive invasions of North Africa.

A player, on the other hand, will focus on taking same-culture, same-religion provinces first and then go expanding.

 

[Eh up me duck]

The EUIII AI is unlikely to attack countries of the same culture or religion, especially if there are nearby foreigners or infidels to attack instead. This is also something that causes the massive invasions of North Africa.

A player, on the other hand, will focus on taking same-culture, same-religion provinces first and then go expanding.

This. It's annoying as hell to see Muscovy refuse to conquer any Russian minors, but expand recklessly into Lithuania. Or France own half of the HRE but own only half of France. Or England falling to rebels early, then later in the game becomes a huge powerful empire that owns half of America but refuses to annex Northumberland (lol) or Cornwall (lol lol).

 

[Dafool]

The EUIII AI is unlikely to attack countries of the same culture or religion, especially if there are nearby foreigners or infidels to attack instead. This is also something that causes the massive invasions of North Africa.

A player, on the other hand, will focus on taking same-culture, same-religion provinces first and then go expanding.

This is a good practical issue to bring up. Making Turkish a "Byzantine" culture would only encourage them to hold their position. On top of that, it would result in odd outcomes where a Greek province might rebel to the Ottomans or a Turkish province might rebel to the Byzantines. Both feel very odd.

Additionally, there are just as many historical reasons to keep the Ottomans out of the Byzantine group as there are to keep them out of the Arabic group. If we're really going to try and represent it faithfully, they might as well be in a separate Turkic group that includes Turkish and Azerbaijani (I would keep the Turkic peoples of Central Asia in the Altai group). Adding Arabic, Greek, or the South Slavic cultures as accepted cultures would be fairly easy to do either through the history files or via a decision.

 

[Beylerbeyi]

To address some points above,

Culture in the EU series is something other than religion (which is modeled in the game as... religion) or language.

Noble marriages are a function of religion in EU, just as they were in real history. Culture groups are not linguistic groups (look at Africa in the game, or Asia: China, Japan and Korea are in the same Culture Group).

Ottomans swallowed the Mamluke Empire in, like, two years. This happened more than 200 years after they were founded. EUII simulated it by an event. It can't be simulated in EUIII, even by a human player. A similar outcome surely can't be simulated by giving the Ottomans Arab culture. I've never seen it happen either.

I don't suggest including the Tatars in the Byzantine culture group. What I wrote was if the Turks are not put in the Byzantine groups they should be in the same group as Tatars, as they expanded there before Arabia. And maybe the Azeris, because they are pretty much the same people (different religion).

Ottomans never performed well in EU games ever since EUII (I haven't played EUI so I don't know about that game). There must be more than one reason for that. Giving them Arab culture instead of Greek, Bulgarian etc is most likely one such reason.

Additionally, there are just as many historical reasons to keep the Ottomans out of the Byzantine group as there are to keep them out of the Arabic group.

Not true. Ottomans haven't even SEEN any Arabs until the 1500s. They came to Turkey via Iran and converted to Iranian Islam on the way. It would even make more historical sense to put them in the same cultural group as Iran than with the Arabs, but in gameplay terms Arabs make more sense. Byzantine makes by far the most sense both historically and in gameplay.

 

[fcmsaab]

I am Arabic, Muslim and have a bachelor in history. Turks always had culture interaction with Arabs. The first two Arabic caliphate employed Turks as mercenaries and organized military. During the Abbasid caliphate turks took major role as the rule of Arabs become less and less direct and more delegated toward other cultural groups. Turks learned from Arabs and interacted with them. The first state that the Ottomans *Sons and daughters of Othman* was granted to them by a Seljuk state. A hybrid state of Turkish ancestry and Arabic.

In the end I would like to say that having Arabic as an accepted culture for Turks is fine and accepted in my professional opinion. They ruled us for centuries and our culture and their culture intermixed. To this day, Arabic have Turkish inherited words and terms from the Ottoman.

I urge you all not to make big deal about this, unless it is an Arabic/hating bash thread then go ahead.

 

[unmerged(612669)]

I am Arabic, Muslim and have a bachelor in history. Turks always had culture interaction with Arabs. The first two Arabic caliphate employed Turks as mercenaries and organized military. During the Abbasid caliphate turks took major role as the rule of Arabs become less and less direct and more delegated toward other cultural groups. Turks learned from Arabs and interacted with them. The first state that the Ottomans *Sons and daughters of Othman* was granted to them by a Seljuk state. A hybrid state of Turkish ancestry and Arabic.

In the end I would like to say that having Arabic as an accepted culture for Turks is fine and accepted in my professional opinion. They ruled us for centuries and our culture and their culture intermixed. To this day, Arabic have Turkish inherited words and terms from the Ottoman.

I urge you all not to make big deal about this, unless it is an Arabic/hating bash thread then go ahead.

The issue is mainly that it indicates conquer the middle east before the Balkans to people (which is the stereotype Turk=Middle East) while historically the Ottomans conquered the Balkans first.

 

[Beylerbeyi]

I am Arabic, Muslim and have a bachelor in history. Turks always had culture interaction with Arabs. The first two Arabic caliphate employed Turks as mercenaries and organized military. During the Abbasid caliphate turks took major role as the rule of Arabs become less and less direct and more delegated toward other cultural groups. Turks learned from Arabs and interacted with them. The first state that the Ottomans *Sons and daughters of Othman* was granted to them by a Seljuk state. A hybrid state of Turkish ancestry and Arabic.

Turkics who served in the Caliphates were assimilated by the Middle Eastern states. It was centuries ago and they are not represented in the EU games. There were also Turkish mercenaries in the Byzantine Empire for centuries, even during the timeframe of the game. They are also not represented. Only the Turks in Anatolia are represented and they came in two waves: with the Seljuks after 1071, and with the Mongols in the 13th century. Ottomans were in the latter wave, not with the Seljuks.

The Great Seljuk Empire also had little to do with Arabs. They ruled over the Arabs, but their high-culture was far more Iranian-influenced. Even their Islam was based on Iranian traditions. Persian was their court language. One of their rulers married the daughter of the Arab Caliph by force (the Arabs initially refused him, they obviously disagreed with you any similarity in culture) for legitimacy. That's about it.

The branch of the Seljuks who ruled Anatolia, the Sultanate of Rum, had even less to do with the Arabs and was most definitely not "a hybrid state of Arabic and Turkish ancestry". If they were a hybrid it was a hybrid of Iranian and Oguz Turkic. I doubt that they have even seen an Arab on their way over Iran.

In the end I would like to say that having Arabic as an accepted culture for Turks is fine and accepted in my professional opinion. They ruled us for centuries and our culture and their culture intermixed. To this day, Arabic have Turkish inherited words and terms from the Ottoman.

Which Arabic land did the Ottomans rule in 1300? In 1350? In 1400? Or in 1444, when the game begins? Or in 1500? Yes they ruled the Arabs after 1517, but mostly indirectly and there were no Arabs in the court. Of course, they ruled for 400 years, so there is some cultural interaction. But it was not there before the 1500s, and when it is there it is far less than the cultural interaction between the Turks and the Greeks.

I urge you all not to make big deal about this, unless it is an Arabic/hating bash thread then go ahead.

I fail to see how anyone is involved in Arab bashing. I have utmost respect for Arabs. But they have nothing to do with Ottoman culture (as understood by the game).

 

[Dafool]

Not true. Ottomans haven't even SEEN any Arabs until the 1500s. They came to Turkey via Iran and converted to Iranian Islam on the way. It would even make more historical sense to put them in the same cultural group as Iran than with the Arabs, but in gameplay terms Arabs make more sense.

I didn't say that Turkish culture should be in the Arab group. I said there are simply reasons to keep it out of both groups.

Byzantine makes by far the most sense both historically and in gameplay.

This isn't the logical conclusion though. Turkish culture in Asia Minor was a result of Arab religious traditions, Persian high culture, Greek geopolitical concerns, Mongol and Turkic political structure, and some plainly unique features as well. Put simply and like I said before, there aren't many reasons that the Turks were more Greek than Persian, Arab, or Altaic. If anything, the uniqueness of Turkish history and development suggests an independent group.

 

[CanOmer]

MEIOU mod has Turko-Byzantine culture group (greek, turkish, bulgarian, albanian).

 

[Duke Von Hannover]

MEIOU mod has Turko-Byzantine culture group (greek, turkish, bulgarian, albanian).

Wouldn't Greco-Turk make more sense and then have Bulgarian/Albanian as part of the same group it is in vanilla and just as an accepted culture? Due to Bulgarian/Albanian cultures being accepted in the Byzantine Empire and not necceserily the same as the Greek culture and so forth?

EDIT: Never mind that is just needless complication that won't make it better in -ANY- way.

 

[Hydro Globus]

The EUIII AI is unlikely to attack countries of the same culture or religion, especially if there are nearby foreigners or infidels to attack instead.

This... this explains EVERYTHING. And is only ever good for Burgundy. Please remake the hard AI to make it actually likely to attack the provinces they'd get the most mileage of.

 

[Avrelianvs]

Wouldn't Greco-Turk make more sense and then have Bulgarian/Albanian as part of the same group it is in vanilla and just as an accepted culture? Due to Bulgarian/Albanian cultures being accepted in the Byzantine Empire and not necceserily the same as the Greek culture and so forth?

EDIT: Never mind that is just needless complication that won't make it better in -ANY- way.

I'd like to point out that we are talking about 4 populations that have no affinity whatsoever with each other! AFAIK, Bulgarians are Slavic, Greeks And Albanians are populations that predate Roman Conquest and Turks are Altaic. Since we are talking about populations that have been neighbours for centuries there are some cultural affinities, naturally, but it's like pretending that the American Native Iroquois have the same culture as English settlers because the 2 cultures have some shared features!

 

[Mr. Capiatlist]

I'd like to point out that we are talking about 4 populations that have no affinity whatsoever with each other! AFAIK, Bulgarians are Slavic, Greeks And Albanians are populations that predate Roman Conquest and Turks are Altaic. Since we are talking about populations that have been neighbours for centuries there are some cultural affinities, naturally, but it's like pretending that the American Native Iroquois have the same culture as English settlers because the 2 cultures have some shared features!

The point in MEIOU was to help the Turks behave historically, which if I remember correctly it did. If the Greeks, Bulgarians and Albanians were not in the "Byzo-Turk" group, the Ottomans just sort of stalled and then did nothing. When they are put into the same group it allowed the Turks to expand historically, an ahistorical Rome could try to regain lost lands (rather than just becoming complacent) and Albania has a bit of a chance too.

It has nothing to do with actual cultural ties, that is for Wikipedia. This is a game and the game's mechanics must be used in such a way to represent a historical system or at least allow for plausibility.

 

[Avrelianvs]

The point in MEIOU was to help the Turks behave historically, which if I remember correctly it did. If the Greeks, Bulgarians and Albanians were not in the "Byzo-Turk" group, the Ottomans just sort of stalled and then did nothing. When they are put into the same group it allowed the Turks to expand historically, an ahistorical Rome could try to regain lost lands (rather than just becoming complacent) and Albania has a bit of a chance too.

It has nothing to do with actual cultural ties, that is for Wikipedia. This is a game and the game's mechanics must be used in such a way to represent a historical system or at least allow for plausibility.

I disagree. A "Byzo-Turk" group that includes all those populations isn't plausible at all, in fact, it's quite ridiculous. Since this game tries to represent actual history (at least as starting point), I really don't understand your point when you say "It has nothing to do with actual cultural ties, that is for Wikipedia." If it has nothing to with actual cultural ties, why did they put culture in the game at all?! Why even use actual historical names, since it's only for Wikipidia?! I vote for changing the name of the game from Europa Universalis to Middle Earth Universalis at this point.

 

[Mr. Capiatlist]

I disagree. A "Byzo-Turk" group that includes all those populations isn't plausible at all, in fact, it's quite ridiculous. Since this game tries to represent actual history (at least as starting point), I really don't understand your point when you say "It has nothing to do with actual cultural ties, that is for Wikipedia." If it has nothing to with actual cultural ties, why did they put culture in the game at all?! Why even use actual historical names, since it's only for Wikipidia?! I vote for changing the name of the game from Europa Universalis to Middle Earth Universalis at this point.

I understand the knee-jerk reaction to this sort of thing. What I mean, and I am going to be as clear as I can be, is that given the game has mechanics and mechanics can only approximate real life. Thus the programmer must also make approximations and changes in order to make sure the game runs properly. So would we rather have a case where the Ottomans are limp, useless, lifeless and no threat at all: just something to be crusaded against; or should they try to gain steam and actually be a threat to the Balkans?

Boiled down; which is more important: nationalistic pride about what brackets your culture is in, or historical plausibility? Given the EU3 system and limitations, this was a sacrifice that had to be made. It has nothing with my or gigau's belief that Greeks are Turks or Bulgarians are Albanians, that wasn't the intent. However; we had to make certain sacrifices to ensure that the nations in-game were modeled appropriately so they'd act plausibly rather than just being "accurate". To us, plausibility was a more important accuracy than cultural ties, so we adopted a new system so that countries would behave appropriately without the game becoming EU2 where everything was set in stone.

Call it what you will, but that is just a fact about being a programmer/engineer. Approximations have to be made to make the system more accurate. I know it doesn't always make sense, but it is what it is.

And please don't reply with "but X aren't related to Y" because that isn't the point I am making, my point is that this is a game with mechanics that are merely approximations that must be tweaked so they can meet previous data.

 

[Avrelianvs]

I understand the knee-jerk reaction to this sort of thing. What I mean, and I am going to be as clear as I can be, is that given the game has mechanics and mechanics can only approximate real life. Thus the programmer must also make approximations and changes in order to make sure the game runs properly. So would we rather have a case where the Ottomans are limp, useless, lifeless and no threat at all: just something to be crusaded against; or should they try to gain steam and actually be a threat to the Balkans?

I agree with what you want accomplish, I just don't think that's the way to do it. As far as I'm concerned, this game is about immersion and this can't be done if you put in the game things that are just plain ridiculous. Using another example (since the first din't make a dent) is like saying Africans from France-colonized territory are in French group culture. Mechanics are important, but they doesn't make sense if you accept such absurd notions as true.

Boiled down; which is more important: nationalistic pride about what brackets your culture is in, or historical plausibility? Given the EU3 system and limitations, this was a sacrifice that had to be made. It has nothing with my or gigau's belief that Greeks are Turks or Bulgarians are Albanians, that wasn't the intent. However; we had to make certain sacrifices to ensure that the nations in-game were modeled appropriately so they'd act plausibly rather than just being "accurate". To us, plausibility was a more important accuracy than cultural ties, so we adopted a new system so that countries would behave appropriately without the game becoming EU2 where everything was set in stone.

Call it what you will, but that is just a fact about being a programmer/engineer. Approximations have to be made to make the system more accurate. I know it doesn't always make sense, but it is what it is.

I wasn't talking about national pride, I was talking about realism. This game is based on reality, and if you have a feature like culture and you distort it to fit some historical plausibility, then it'd be better if culture is removed, since it will only decrease the realistic feeling the game is trying to give.
So, please, do make approximations, but lets not forget to try uphold what was real. That's also the direction the devs have taken with DHEs and NIs.
In the end, the success or defeat of the Ottoman Empire should depend from AI and not from some feature that even a superficial look at history shows being just wrong.