Not a bug but not kosher either: Turkish duchess and countess titles (and also queen)

[Emre Yigit]

I must confess I had a good chuckle when I encountered Beylerbayan etc in 1.06b. It's a brilliant invention (meant sincerely, no irony) but also, alas, not right.

"Bayan" is a 20th century invention equivalent then to "Mrs" and now to "Ms" too. So, "Bayan Anna" means "Ms Anna", certainly not "Countess Anna" (which, would, incidentally, be "Kontes Anna" but that was imported from French in the late 19th century, IIRC).

Properly speaking, women's titles should come after their name. So, Sultan Süleyman but Hürrem Sultan. However, I can easily live with Sultana Hürrem because of its long usage.

I would suggest "Hanimefendi" for Beylerbeys' wives, and "Hanim" for Beys'. Hanimefendi is a neologism, but an older one at least. (Hanim for both wives would perhaps be better). Again, properly after the name, but if the game doesn't allow it, before would do.


On a related topic, the title Beylerbeyi was not hereditary, and corresponds to Governor-General/Viceroy. Bey does equal lord, and could be hereditary. In fact, the whole Turkish system (and presumably others in the Islamic world) was based on direct rule (governors) or fiefs (generally) held during good behaviour or for life, which became hereditary only in, say, the 16th century. But, since I assume the game cannot model this, and since this only really happened when crown authority was "absolute" I'm OK.

In case you haven't read your Machiavelli:

The examples of these two governments in our time are the Turk and the King of France. The entire monarchy of the Turk is governed by one lord, the others are his servants; and, dividing his kingdom into sanjaks, he sends there different administrators, and shifts and changes them as he chooses. But the King of France is placed in the midst of an ancient body of lords, acknowledged by their own subjects, and beloved by them; they have their own prerogatives, nor can the king take these away except at his peril. Therefore, he who considers both of these states will recognize great difficulties in seizing the state of the Turk, but, once it is conquered, great ease in holding it. The causes of the difficulties in seizing the kingdom of the Turk are that the usurper cannot be called in by the princes of the kingdom, nor can he hope to be assisted in his designs by the revolt of those whom the lord has around him. This arises from the reasons given above; for his ministers, being all slaves and bondmen, can only be corrupted with great difficulty, and one can expect little advantage from them when they have been corrupted, as they cannot carry the people with them, for the reasons assigned. Hence, he who attacks the Turk must bear in mind that he will find him united, and he will have to rely more on his own strength than on the revolt of others; but, if once the Turk has been conquered, and routed in the field in such a way that he cannot replace his armies, there is nothing to fear but the family of this prince, and, this being exterminated, there remains no one to fear, the others having no credit with the people; and as the conqueror did not rely on them before his victory, so he ought not to fear them after it.

 

[grisamentum]

The game models that by allowing Muslim king-level rulers to revoke any duke-level title without generating dislike among the subjects. So the Seljuk Sultan can revoke a beylerbey without anyone getting mad (except maybe the revokee), just as Machiavelli says "he sends there different administrators, and shifts and changes them as he chooses."

 

[Emre Yigit]

Yeah, that bit is an afterthought. I'm more concerned about the naming convention here.