Ottoman Empire in EUIII

[Kurdistani]

I agree with that. Ottomans never adopted any Kurdish aspect into their culture and Kurds have not played a major role in the Imperial Ottoman Administration. Following the conquests of Selim the Grim in 1517, they were allowed to preserve their ancient feudal structures, dynasties and were granted much authonomy not seen anywhere else in the empire. Given the Kurdish highland's extremely harsh geography, this was the only viable option as it was impossible to garrison or maintain tax collectors in the area. For the average Kurd, the Ottoman sovereignty meant nothing and they did not feel any change in their lives.

The Ottomans actually helped build the Kurdish emirates in the region. Most of the Sunni dyansties had been harshly oppressed by the Aqqoylu and had lost their lands. Thus, the Ottomans helped set up the system of almost independent statelets which provided troops to the Sultan in times of war. Some of the units (Akrad Beylerbey) where basically legalised bandits... However, the Emirates of Botan... Baban... Soran... Hakkari where more akin to mini Ottoman states. These units minted their own coin and had Friday prayers said in the name of the Emir and not the Sultan (a sign of sovereignity in Islamic statecraft).

Tunch... there has been a fair amount of cultural intergration of Kurds into the Ottoman system.. Words like Serbest, Durbin and Kirhane are borrowed from Kurdish not Persian.
This system set up by Selim the Grim was successful in maintaining Ottoman dominance over Kurdistan... (areas like Diyarbekir and Mosul where very much like regular Ottoman provinces) maybe Kurdish should be a national culture to refect this Ottoman success....

 

[Kurdistani]

This map was produced by a nationalist. But the borders reflect the administrative divides in Eastern Anatolia and upper Mozopotamia before the modernisation of provincial organisation in the mid 19th century.

 

[Enravota]

1. There was an attempt to build an Ottoman civic nationalism in the 19th century.

But the real thing was due to Kemal. And claiming that the other has 19th or 20th century nationalism bias is hardly an argument, it's irrelevant.

2. The Ottoman Empire may not have been "good" to religious minorities by modern standards for sure. However, comparied to Europe in the 16th and 17th century they were. The religious communities in the Ottoman Empire had an institutional autonomy under the Millet system. Thus, despite everything minority religions were respected by the state. In contrast Spain expelled its Muslim and Jewish population.

Why always give the extreme example of Spain? And btw did OE had in the begining the possibilities to expulse the Balkan locals, which were hardly a minority before the OE turned East? Not to mention that your favourite Spanish example was carried out by Torquemada's conviction rather than anything else - I&F were ready to accept extra taxation from Jewish enclaves to let them stay (sounds familiar?). OE was in no way better than the ROTW in handling religios minorities (which are actually a religious minority as the only sanctioned religious group in the empire except Sunni Muslims was Eastern Orthodox under the Universal Patriarch in Constantinople, other religious enclaves were left alone only with legal exceptions or by regularly bribing officials).

 

[Tunch Khan]

But the real thing was due to Kemal. And claiming that the other has 19th or 20th century nationalism bias is hardly an argument, it's irrelevant.

Why always give the extreme example of Spain? And btw did OE had in the begining the possibilities to expulse the Balkan locals, which were hardly a minority before the OE turned East? Not to mention that your favourite Spanish example was carried out by Torquemada's conviction rather than anything else - I&F were ready to accept extra taxation from Jewish enclaves to let them stay (sounds familiar?). OE was in no way better than the ROTW in handling religios minorities (which are actually a religious minority as the only sanctioned religious group in the empire except Sunni Muslims was Eastern Orthodox under the Universal Patriarch in Constantinople, other religious enclaves were left alone only with legal exceptions or by regularly bribing officials).

Orthodox Christians of Constantinople and Balkans were force converted to Catholicism during the Latin occupation and the rule of the later Catholic Principalities. Jews have been butchered all across Europe on a regular basis ever since the Crusades. The reason I keep reminding you of 19th century is because of your insistince on judging OE in those standards and not for the EU III timeframe. Game starts in 1453 for the record and Ottomans had a pretty decent system. Just read any non-Turkish work of history on Ottoman Empire. For a light but enjoyable read, check out Lords of the Horizons by Jason Goodwin.

 

[Beylerbeyi]

The thing that you say might be truth for the the first two centuries of Ottoman empire. From the middle of 16th century the Ottomans became more and more rigid and the opression of enslaved nations more harsh. With the passing years Ottomans were less and less tolerant... thats the reason why there were all these liberation wars at the start of 19th century.

In fact, the problem was that the Ottoman state became less centralised after the end of 'classical period', i.e. after 1600. Before that the strong central government could enforce the laws and prevent the local rulers from exploiting the peasants excessively. When the central government became weak, the population were at the mercy of their local lords, who often ended up exploiting them illegally.

I doubt that the OE became was more tolerant before, or became less tolerant after, 1600. Only in the 20th century, was the central government significantly less tolerant, due to nationalism. This tradition of Balkan-nationalist intolerance continues in Turkish Republic

Its prety far fetched to claim that OE was at any point tolerant and respecting state. That the conquered peoples were allowed existence was only due to that the Ottomans required them as milk cows and not to some medieval "liberalism" of the Porte.

While you are right in asserting that the main reason behind Ottoman tolerance is necessity, it is also a fact that the Muslim states in middle ages were more tolerant than Christian states in general. This is simply because Islam came after Christianity and Judaism, and it sees its roots in these religions, and thus had rules to accomodate people who follow those religions from the very beginning. Christianity in turn, doesn't view Islam as a legitimate religion, and don't have rules to accomodate Muslims. Christians in particular tended to crack down on what they percieved as heretic behaviour, including other Christian beliefs. I think the existence and power of competing Churches was another important reason behind this intolerance. Islam, in contrast, is very decentralised.

 

[nomoi]

To judge the OE's tolerance against other religions is nothing but a trendy and completely absurd discussion. To better understand and judge about the era, all to be done is to read some optimistic views. That's all...(Well, you can always read all the sources and decide afterwards but that will lead you to my point as you can see the writers' supporting documents)

I do not say everything was perfect but regarding that time zone it was almost perfect.

For the record, this is still a dilemma that many discuss; "What if OE hadn't proposed that kind of tolerance to religious minorities? Than what would have happened?". That's the discussion.

Plus Istanbul is the city that is owned by a muslim state and have a record number of churches. It is only my view but I don't believe it would be the case if Istanbul is conquered by a chrisitian state at that time frame.

 

[Mr. Domino]

If I can try to switch gears for a second:

As far as "how many cultures should the ottomans have?" I really feel they should only have one. Here me out. My point is that no matter how well they governed certain areas, they still got some sort of penalty compared to what the "natural" occupiers would have had. Sure, a surprising amount of say Greeks joined the sultans service and were loyal. But can anyone really argue just as many Greeks would have been loyal to a strong Greek king? That say, Albanian was just as productive, loyal, and effectively governed as the Sunni Turkish areas of Anatolia? Because, at least under EU2 rules, when you have a national culture you govern it just as well as the native rulers. The penalty the Ottomans experienced from ruling foreigners was far lower than what you would expect from most occupiers but still there. Maybe the tolerance system will fix this.

The way EU2 handled this disappointed me a little. In Eu2 the Austrians control hungary just as effectively as they control Austria, If the Austrians and the Ottomans stick to "only" gobbling up stuff of there religon and 4-5 ethnicites, after say 40 years of conversions they will be just as stable as say, the monocultural French state (along with having Sunni greece and Catholic Bohemia). Basically these sprawling multi-cultural empires are far more stable and efficient than they were in actuality. I probably am in the minority but when I wanna play as a Ottomans and Austrians I wanna struggle in some way to keep my somewhat artificial empire together, not have an ahistorically docile and productive multi-cultural heartland.

Finally, am I curious what people think regarding if and how the Ottomans should be nerfed late game. To me there are two arguments why it should happen 1, like Spain the Ottomans start off very strong and in the GC, especially in MP, can start to run away with the game when faced with "slow" starting countries like England or Russia. 2. For a variety of historic reasons (some of which are likely to be the case even human controlled, like overstretch), like Spain, the Ottomans experienced a period of decline in game timeline. In EU2 Spain's big nerf is the state bankrupcy events, for the ottomans it was revolt of the beyes which was pretty (too?) nasty. Maybe a bunch of smaller, more trigger sensitive nerfs would be better. For instance, I believe one of the reasons the Ottomans lost alot of trade once European traders found a sea route to India/China they no longer had to pass overland through the Ottoman empire. Maybe the Ottomans lose a CoT once Europeans discover, say, a sea path to China?

 

[Arilou]

ut can anyone really argue just as many Greeks would have been loyal to a strong Greek king?

Well, the greeks *were* arguably more loyal to the Sultan than to their own byzantine emperors.... There's a reason it's called "byzantine" politics

 

[Enravota]

Orthodox Christians of Constantinople and Balkans were force converted to Catholicism during the Latin occupation and the rule of the later Catholic Principalities. Jews have been butchered all across Europe on a regular basis ever since the Crusades. The reason I keep reminding you of 19th century is because of your insistince on judging OE in those standards and not for the EU III timeframe. Game starts in 1453 for the record and Ottomans had a pretty decent system. Just read any non-Turkish work of history on Ottoman Empire. For a light but enjoyable read, check out Lords of the Horizons by Jason Goodwin.

I asked for a historian, not a journalist but nevermind. Alas, teh internet is a thing where you can find all kinds of funny stuff like this one saying something completely different about 19th century and OE tolerance. This guy at least majored social sciences.

o judge the OE's tolerance against other religions is nothing but a trendy and completely absurd discussion.

Actually, OE's tolerance is the trendy topic, while its intolerance is the older one. The tolerant OE emerged (again) with rise of neo-liberal political tendencies. History is often reread in the light of today's political views.

As far as "how many cultures should the ottomans have?" I really feel they should only have one.

You dissagree that OE should have Inca state culture? 'cause if they conqured the Inca empire Incas would be successfully integrated in Ottoman structures and have a happy life. That's fact

Well, the greeks *were* arguably more loyal to the Sultan than to their own byzantine emperors.... There's a reason it's called "byzantine" politics

Greeks (and some other peoples who were in Byzantium for some time) were quite loyal to the institution of the emperor. They didn't quite agree who exactly should wear the red boots. And its called Byzantine politics, 'cause Byzantines were quite fond of using spys, assasins and alliances to bring their (whether individual or state) enemies down, rather the more common at the time straight war.

 

[nomoi]

Originally posted by Enravota
Actually, OE's tolerance is the trendy topic, while its intolerance is the older one. The tolerant OE emerged (again) with rise of neo-liberal political tendencies. History is often reread in the light of today's political views.

Aha..., we got a word-gamer here. You must have solved the Fibonacci thing faster than Robert Langdon.

Dude, what is your point? Be more spesific.
Seems like you talk without facts.

 

[Enravota]

Aha..., we got a word-gamer here. You must have solved the Fibonacci thing faster than Robert Langdon.

Dude, what is your point? Be more spesific.
Seems like you talk without facts.

Fibonacci is not a puzzle to be solved, just a sequence of numbers . The point is that OE had religous tolerance difference to other contemporary states close to nil. Contemporary historians present it either as a monster or as a saint, btw you present no facts either, seems we both just talk

 

[Registered]

Actually, OE's tolerance is the trendy topic, while its intolerance is the older one. The tolerant OE emerged (again) with rise of neo-liberal political tendencies. History is often reread in the light of today's political views.

The early protestant were already raving about the OEs tollerance to other religions (happily ignoring the fact hetrodox muslims were persecuted).

 

[nomoi]

- Even after a glorious conquest and even having every power to do so(it might surely be a political decision but think about the popularity if done opposite), let the patriachate stay open.
- Rescuing the jews that are just being slaughtered by Ferdinand (Spain).
- Every religion have their temples in major cities.
- Non-muslims freely have done their religious duties in those times of turmoil.(while in europe, hundreds of thousands killing each other for religious reasons)
- Togheterly living without much controversy until OE lose power ( rather strange ha! ) and rise of nationalism.

Those are facts.
Rather important ones indeed. Came into mind in just 5mins.

 

[Tunch Khan]

The early protestant were already raving about the OEs tollerance to other religions (happily ignoring the fact hetrodox muslims were persecuted).

The reason heterodox muslims (Alewi/Shiite) were being persecuted was their open and fanatical support for the Turkish Shah in Persia (Ismail and the Safavid Dynasty) who was also a Shiite (Qizilbash). Had the Alweites remained loyal to Ottomans, no one would have been persecuted as the major religious sects in the Capital were also pro-Shiite (eg.Bektashi Order which was the official religious order of the Janissary Corps).

 

[Kurdistani]

The reason heterodox muslims (Alewi/Shiite) were being persecuted was their open and fanatical support for the Turkish Shah in Persia (Ismail and the Safavid Dynasty) who was also a Shiite (Qizilbash). Had the Alweites remained loyal to Ottomans, no one would have been persecuted as the major religious sects in the Capital were also pro-Shiite (eg.Bektashi Order which was the official religious order of the Janissary Corps).

Just look at the Yezdis Kurds of Sinjar... They were regarded as devil worshipers. Yet, they served in the armies of Selim the Grim.
Equally, the Shebek Shiites of Mosul and Khanaqin who were almost the same as Alevis were never displaced my the Ottoman Sultan because politically they where loyal to the institution.

Ottoman Policy was driven by practical concerns. There Empire was by far the most religious diverse in the region.

edit: This is all sneaking off topic.

 

[Enravota]

- Even after a glorious conquest and even having every power to do so(it might surely be a political decision but think about the popularity if done opposite), let the patriachate stay open.

But dismantled the Patriarchates of Serbia and Bulgaria, while Catholics and Bogomils had uncertain status and right of existance in the erly empire.

- Rescuing the jews that are just being slaughtered by Ferdinand (Spain).

Jews offered to pay extra taxes plus a hefty sum up front to stay in Spain and Isabel and Fernan initially agreed (as I mentioned). It was Torquemada, who when learned about this, went to the I&F and threw 30 SP at their feet saying it was the initial pay by the devil. Not to mention that the Ottomans never really had the oportunity to expulse or exterminate the Balkanians, who were hardly minority in early OE.

- Every religion have their temples in major cities.

The only officially sanctoined non-Muslim temples were Orthodox churches, who usually were build after paying a bribe to a number of officials and had to be dig up into the ground (so to be lower than mosques), could not have bells etc.

- Non-muslims freely have done their religious duties in those times of turmoil.(while in europe, hundreds of thousands killing each other for religious reasons)

Religious turmoil, in Europe was usually political turmoils. In cases of Christian rebelions large parts of the local population (involved in the rebelion or not) suffered the goverment retaliation. After the previously disscused Chiprovci uprising many Bulgarians migrated into Moldavia and Wlachia, whose enclaves are in places still present. If they were so happy and well treated why leave?

- Togheterly living without much controversy until OE lose power ( rather strange ha! ) and rise of nationalism.

Yeah, some of them, ofcourse, could not wear brightly coloured clothes (remember Western Europe, hats and a certain ethno-religious minority?), to stay on horse or mule when any Muslim was around, had to pay blood and tooth taxes and sometimes being just randomly gutted, but that's hardly controversial right .

I'm happy you thought about it for 5', wonder what will hapen after 10'

Ottoman Policy was driven by practical concerns. There Empire was by far the most religious diverse in the region.

Early Ottomans were a good players of religion and politics, which is generally an explosive mix. They were however not tolerant but practical, in most cases.

edit: This is all sneaking off topic.

It depends what you consider to be the topic, but I'd tend to agree.

 

[otacu]

If I can try to switch gears for a second:

As far as "how many cultures should the ottomans have?" I really feel they should only have one. Here me out. My point is that no matter how well they governed certain areas, they still got some sort of penalty compared to what the "natural" occupiers would have had. Sure, a surprising amount of say Greeks joined the sultans service and were loyal. But can anyone really argue just as many Greeks would have been loyal to a strong Greek king? That say, Albanian was just as productive, loyal, and effectively governed as the Sunni Turkish areas of Anatolia? Because, at least under EU2 rules, when you have a national culture you govern it just as well as the native rulers. The penalty the Ottomans experienced from ruling foreigners was far lower than what you would expect from most occupiers but still there. Maybe the tolerance system will fix this.

The way EU2 handled this disappointed me a little. In Eu2 the Austrians control hungary just as effectively as they control Austria, If the Austrians and the Ottomans stick to "only" gobbling up stuff of there religon and 4-5 ethnicites, after say 40 years of conversions they will be just as stable as say, the monocultural French state (along with having Sunni greece and Catholic Bohemia). Basically these sprawling multi-cultural empires are far more stable and efficient than they were in actuality. I probably am in the minority but when I wanna play as a Ottomans and Austrians I wanna struggle in some way to keep my somewhat artificial empire together, not have an ahistorically docile and productive multi-cultural heartland.

I think too that almost all states in EU should have 1 or MAX 2 cultures. Becasue as culture is designed now it's really too advantageus for multhiethinc empires. Easier conversions, perfect production, less revolt risk.... for free!

A true state with 2 cultures was Austria-Ungary after 1876 where both cultures reigned together. OE is just tollerant to other religions and this should be made in-game by a tollerance slider. OE was more tollerant (for the historical period) than other countries and this "advantage" should be gained with internal policies not as "magic". High tollerance should give (for example)

- less revolt risk for other religions/cultures (a bonus based on the tollerance to that particular religion from the religion panel)
- improved production in provinces with different religions/cultures (a bonus based on the tollerance to that particular religion from the religion panel)
-less revolt risk (a bonus based on the tollerance to that particular religion from the religion panel)
- very few missionaries but slighty higher conversion rate success (the conversion of the Balkans was limited only to few regions)
- more revolt risk for dominant religion/culture
- a bonus in the technology research (so that could replace the free upgrades that OE receives)

 

[Kurdistani]

good point...
the thing is i have just looked at the one of the screenies... it seems that there is a "lowland scottish culture"... It seems most states will need more than one culture...

 

[Tunch Khan]

But dismantled the Patriarchates of Serbia and Bulgaria, while Catholics and Bogomils had uncertain status and right of existance in the erly empire.

Because they were all united under the same administration now and no need to support seperate entities when the Greek Patriarch could do the job for Serbs and Bulgarians of the same faith. Otherwise we'd see every smelly village preacher declare their own Patriarchate. It's an administrative issue best left to the Ottomans.

The only officially sanctoined non-Muslim temples were Orthodox churches, who usually were build after paying a bribe to a number of officials and had to be dig up into the ground (so to be lower than mosques), could not have bells etc.
....
Yeah, some of them, ofcourse, could not wear brightly coloured clothes (remember Western Europe, hats and a certain ethno-religious minority?), to stay on horse or mule when any Muslim was around, had to pay blood and tooth taxes and sometimes being just randomly gutted, but that's hardly controversial right

Ever since the Ottoman withdrawal, there's still no single mosque in Athens, let aside a minaret even to this date where a hundred thousand muslims live. Let me remind you that Greece is a modern liberal democracy and member of Europen Union. Hmm, take that country's mindset 700 years back in time and give them the Janissaries to see how they treat their cultural and religious minorites. Not hard to guess for me. Please don't let me give examples from how Bulgaria attempted to force convert their Turkish minorities just 20 years ago and held them in concentration camps. Now take Todor Jivkov 700 years back in time and hand him the Janissaries and see how he taxes the conquered peoples, if left any. Not hard to guess right? And you are crying about not being able to wear bright clothes... *sigh

 

[Kurdistani]

Here discuss the issues of Ottoman tolerence on this page....

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=254461

Lets stick to what the Ottoman Empire should be like in EU two...

If paradox is going for having loads of cultures (i.e Scotland will have highland and lowerland cultures)
then i suggest...

Turkish =
Anatolian Turkish
Azeri (oguz) Turkish
Turkoman
Uzbek
Tatar
Khazah

Arabic=
Shami
Iraqi
Misiri
Maghrebi
Bedouin (Arabian)
Hijazi

Persian =
Tajik
Gilani
Farsi
Luri

Kurdish =
Kirmanji
Sorani
Zazaki

Other cultures if they are need...
Eastern Armenian
Western Armenian
Assyrian