Byzantium and the Ottomans

[cheese1]

The Greeks are related to the Turks? Tell that to both sides during the Grece-Turkish War in 1919-1922. Could save thousands of lives, stop mass genocide.

 

[Steelers1990]

It does not matter who is related to who or who should have the same "culture group". This is about improving the game play by making countries like the Ottomans more likely to try and maybe succeed in expanding to their historical borders when played by the AI. This grouping will hopefully make it a little bit easier to have a huge AI controlled OE etc. This is not about Turks and Greeks having the same culture but they most certainly did not.

The whole argument against this grouping is pointless cause any groupings of "cultures" will be made to improve the AI game play.

 

[Tufto]

Why not simply do away with the groupings all together, and instead give each culture a list of permanently "tolerated" cultures, with other cultures having the capacity for toleration if they constitute a large enough proportion of the empire?

 

[Steelers1990]

That may work too.

 

[Plasma Doctor]

Always kind of bothered me that Flemish and Dutch were German cultures to a degree, despite not being able to form Germany or really be 'german' really.

Though the real question here is: Will Albania be the worst province in the game again?

 

[grommile]

Though the real question here is: Will Albania be the worst province in the game again?

Sarai is worse. At least Albania gives you access to the sea.

 

[MilosM]

Sarai is worse. At least Albania gives you access to the sea.

Agreed, Sarai is terrible and I think there some more provinces further right from Sarai that are equally bad.Albania might be worst province in Europe but not in game.

 

[Hydro Globus]

Why not simply do away with the groupings all together, and instead give each culture a list of permanently "tolerated" cultures, with other cultures having the capacity for toleration if they constitute a large enough proportion of the empire?

This.

 

[Blaze86420]

Firstly, you sure are quite arrogant for someone who thinks Iran was Shia when the Turks converted to Islam. Turkics, and not only the Oguz, but all Turkics- got Islam via Iran. Islam came with associated traditions based on Iranian civilisation, and we are discussing the traditions here and not religion itself, because that's how it is in the game.

I stated no such thing, that is only the product of your delusion. And this is certainly not how religion works in this game, there is no such thing as Iranian Islam, there is Shia Islam, and it is in way, shape, or form inherently Iranian. Would you advocate the inclusion of "Malian Islam" and "Javan Islam" in the game as well? If you don't why not? Because the Iranians were not the only people to interpret Islam a little differently, depending on local customs.

Secondly, Ottomans of course had contacts with the Arab world, after they settled and started bordering the Med. They traded with the Arabs and had similar high culture (Turkish version of which was more similar to Iran). However, their contacts with the Arabs were 1/100th of their contacts with the Greeks. You are also wrong about madrassas. There were plenty of madrassas in Anatolia, which was Turkish land for 200 years when the Ottomans were founded. Both the Sultanate of Rum and the Turkish Beyliks built madrassas. Actually the jurist and scholar class has always been dominated by ethnic Turks in the OE, even when the central government depended mostly on the Devshirme. Ottomans invited scholars from all over the world and there were obviously Arab scholars as well.

That is wrong, the state did in fact lack an indigenous class of theologians initially, how long the Turks have ruled Anatolia is irrelevant, what is known and documented is that they did in fact import their jurists from the Arab world, and Iran too before the Safavvids took over. You're making a flawed argument based on an equally flawed premise, which is since the Turks are not cultural relatives of the Arabs then they should be considered as such for the Greeks and Iranians.

Thirdly, Ottoman rule in Anatolia and the Balkans involved dividing up the land in Timars, which was a version of the Seljuk ikta and Byzantine Pronia systems. The Timar owners did not own their land and were government officers. The state also sent judges to all those lands, who independently reported to Constantinople. The Timar owner and the Judge ruled the land for the Porte. This system was applied in some parts of Syria after 1516. In the rest of the Arab lands, i.e. remaining parts of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Hedjaz, Algeria, Tunisia and most importantly Egypt, this system was NOT applied. Ottomans ruled those lands directly only at the Governor level, and not at town/sanjak/village level, like they did in Balkans and Anatolia. Ottomans let the Egyptian locals run the place and shipped the excess gold from the budget to Constantinople.

Wrong again, only the first governor of Egypt was a Mamluk, every single one after him was sent from the capital, that is, until central authority was challenged centuries later. But that is hardly the point anyway, the Turks should definitely not be put with the rest of the Byzantine culture group. It doesn't matter how remarkably similar their cultures are or how intertwined their history, what matters is identity, and the Turks did not see themselves as similar to the Greeks and certainly no the other way around. What the Ottoman elite believed has little bearing on the matter, the fact that they inherited Byzantine state-craft traditions does not change the identity of the Turks.

There is a reason why nationalism in the Balkans was the threat that it was for the Ottomans.

 

[Dafool]

Always kind of bothered me that Flemish and Dutch were German cultures to a degree, despite not being able to form Germany or really be 'german' really.

The Dutch didn't really separate from the larger German continuum until about midway through the game and that process isn't complete until the Vicky period. It would actually be a bit more odd for them to be a separate culture than to be in German group.

 

[Luhood]

I stated no such thing, that is only the product of your delusion. And this is certainly not how religion works in this game, there is no such thing as Iranian Islam, there is Shia Islam, and it is in way, shape, or form inherently Iranian. Would you advocate the inclusion of "Malian Islam" and "Javan Islam" in the game as well? If you don't why not? Because the Iranians were not the only people to interpret Islam a little differently, depending on local customs.

What he says isn't that there exists an Iranian Islam as opposed to Shiite or Sunni Islam but rather that the Islamic traditions and customs of the Ottomans were similar to those of the Iranians who taught then the Islamic religion. I will however agree that this is not how it is represented in the game, where religion is as black and white as culture, but I digress.

I agree with the notion for a separate Ottoman culture group, for the lone reason that they are such a melting pot it is close to impossible to put them anywhere else. They hail from an Altaic culture, have their religious traditions taught to them by Iranians and Arabs, have Greek and Balkan subjects whose traditions they have to live with and in some ways assimilate in order to keep them loyal, and a Byzantine state whose political traditions they too have assimilated and now have to live with. They aren't Byzantine, they aren't Arabic, they aren't Iranian, and yet aren't Altaic either. So what are they? Ottoman.

 

[Hydro Globus]

You can't have a culture group with only one culture. Well, you can, but then what is the point?

 

[Projekt 919]

You can't have a culture group with only one culture.

Tell that to the Basques

 

[CanOmer]

I have a question. Why is the French culture named as cosmopolitaine?

 

[Hydro Globus]

Tell that to the Basques

Right. :shy:

I have a question. Why is the French culture named as cosmopolitaine?

Because half France is aquitaine.

 

[Tufto]

Why do people think Albania is the worst province in the game? Azab infantry means I always try to get it quickly when playing as a Balkan power in the early game.

 

[Erdobelli]

What he says isn't that there exists an Iranian Islam as opposed to Shiite or Sunni Islam but rather that the Islamic traditions and customs of the Ottomans were similar to those of the Iranians who taught then the Islamic religion. I will however agree that this is not how it is represented in the game, where religion is as black and white as culture, but I digress.

I agree with the notion for a separate Ottoman culture group, for the lone reason that they are such a melting pot it is close to impossible to put them anywhere else. They hail from an Altaic culture, have their religious traditions taught to them by Iranians and Arabs, have Greek and Balkan subjects whose traditions they have to live with and in some ways assimilate in order to keep them loyal, and a Byzantine state whose political traditions they too have assimilated and now have to live with. They aren't Byzantine, they aren't Arabic, they aren't Iranian, and yet aren't Altaic either. So what are they? Ottoman.

Although the ruling family (ottomans) and their tribe (Oguz) were Altaic Turks, after the initial stage (once the sultanate started to expand into Balkans) ruling family refrained from employing Turks in the administration and military leadership (historians think that it was a move to avoid internal conflicts based on the old Turkic tribal traditions) and instead used converts (devshirme) to serve for the empire. Among those converted children: smart ones were reserved for palace duty whereas the others formed the bulk of the janissary army as well as personal guards (kapikulu) of the Sultan. So I would say imperial organization of Ottoman empire was de facto neutral to different culture groups (that would not be so true however in respect of religious differences). In game terms, different culture negative modifiers, for instance, may be removed for Ottomans if and when the Ottomans adopts imperial administration in order to portray their success in holding, managing and ruling foreign territories.

 

[Avrelianvs]

Although the ruling family (ottomans) and their tribe (Oguz) were Altaic Turks, after the initial stage (once the sultanate started to expand into Balkans) ruling family refrained from employing Turks in the administration and military leadership (historians think that it was a move to avoid internal conflicts based on the old Turkic tribal traditions) and instead used converts (devshirme) to serve for the empire. Among those converted children: smart ones were reserved for palace duty whereas the others formed the bulk of the janissary army as well as personal guards (kapikulu) of the Sultan. So I would say imperial organization of Ottoman empire was de facto neutral to different culture groups (that would not be so true however in respect of religious differences). In game terms, different culture negative modifiers, for instance, may be removed for Ottomans if and when the Ottomans adopts imperial administration in order to portray their success in holding, managing and ruling foreign territories.

I sweared I'd not post in this thread again, but this post makes really sense, so here I am . I don't know if it can be done game-wise, but that's a realistic description of the Ottoman system and it's attitude toward different culture groups.

AFAIK, the Ottomans didn't even recognise the different cultures, but they recognise the different religions. They called them 'milet', and gave them ufficial status.

 

[Beylerbeyi]

I stated no such thing, that is only the product of your delusion. And this is certainly not how religion works in this game, there is no such thing as Iranian Islam, there is Shia Islam, and it is in way, shape, or form inherently Iranian. Would you advocate the inclusion of "Malian Islam" and "Javan Islam" in the game as well? If you don't why not? Because the Iranians were not the only people to interpret Islam a little differently, depending on local customs.

Other people understood what I mean with "Iranian Islam". You can too.

That is wrong, the state did in fact lack an indigenous class of theologians initially, how long the Turks have ruled Anatolia is irrelevant, what is known and documented is that they did in fact import their jurists from the Arab world, and Iran too before the Safavvids took over. You're making a flawed argument based on an equally flawed premise, which is since the Turks are not cultural relatives of the Arabs then they should be considered as such for the Greeks and Iranians.

What is a 'class of theologians'? In the Ottoman Empire, the "kadi"s (i.e. judge), the Ottoman officials trained in Islamic Law formed a class which ruled the land along with the timar holders. Without a trial by a kadi, the timar holder, or even the janissaries sent from Constantinople with direct orders from the Padishah could not punish someone.

And the kadi class were locally trained and ethnically mostly Turkish, with zero Arabs before 16th century and very few Arabs after. There were countless madrasas in Turkey. First Ottoman one was opened in 1331 in Iznik. There were already many others in other Anatolian cities which they soon conquered. Mehmed the Conqueror built a massive complex of eight high madrassas and invited scholars from around the world to teach there (should count as a university in EU). Each of these had a lower madrassa to prepare students for the higher education. Modern University of Istanbul traces its founding to Mehmed II's madrassas. He also converted eight churches to madrassas after the conquest.

Earlier Sultans built Imperial madrassas in Edirne and Bursa as well. But it wasn't only the sultans who founded madrassas. The imperial ones were higher, but there were countless ones built by the viziers and similar powerful officials and earlier ones by other states in Anatolia.

To give you an idea about the numbers, there were 14 madrassas just in Edirne in 1529; 95 (!) by the 17th century just in Istanbul, and 170 just in Istanbul by the 19th century... They had hundreds if not thousands of madrassas all over the land.

Being a kadi was prestigious and financially rewarding. So there were always enough candidates for the posts. Actually there were too many students who wanted to be kadi, they formed gangs and rioted in the 16th century (the "softa riots") when they did not get posts.

So, what you wrote is nonsense. Ottomans could and did train their own judges and officials and never imported any Arabs en masse.

Wrong again, only the first governor of Egypt was a Mamluk, every single one after him was sent from the capital, that is, until central authority was challenged centuries later.

Please. I wrote that Ottomans ruled Egypt at governor level. The Beylerbeyi and the Janissaries were of course from Istanbul, but Egypt was financially independent. The land was administrated by the locals, unlike the Ottoman core lands. I already explained to you how the Ottomans ruled the Balkans and Anatolia and the Arab provinces, read it again.

But that is hardly the point anyway, the Turks should definitely not be put with the rest of the Byzantine culture group. It doesn't matter how remarkably similar their cultures are or how intertwined their history, what matters is identity, and the Turks did not see themselves as similar to the Greeks and certainly no the other way around. What the Ottoman elite believed has little bearing on the matter, the fact that they inherited Byzantine state-craft traditions does not change the identity of the Turks.

There is a reason why nationalism in the Balkans was the threat that it was for the Ottomans.

There was no 'national identity' or 'nationalism' in the world before 1789. Ethnical identity did not translate into the political sphere as it does now. Religion was the most important factor in defining identity (for the n th time: which is modelled separately). And the Orthodox church was an Ottoman vassal anyway, which ruled the Orthodox for the Porte.

 

[unmerged(7537)]

It doesn't matter how remarkably similar their cultures are or how intertwined their history, what matters is identity, and the Turks did not see themselves as similar to the Greeks and certainly no the other way around.

What Turks? The Ottoman Empire's elites and administrators were primarily drawn from the Balkan regions, not Anatolia, let alone actual Turkestan.