Persia should be represented with blue

[Shahanshah Rober]

I take it you have never played them in CK2? Because they are culturally Turkish in the game. Pretty sure they will be Turkish/Oghuz in CK3 too.

Well to be honest I have 1000 hours on game but I mostly play as Persians, Greeks, Armenians and Kurds. And if he was Turkish in game then it is false, he should have Turkish portrait with Persian culture. Saladin is wrong too while being kurdish Tribe he is bedouin.

 

[Endleofon]

Well to be honest I have 1000 hours on game but I mostly play as Persians, Greeks, Armenians and Kurds. And if he was Turkish in game then it is false, he should have Turkish portrait with Persian culture.

The Seljuks are called "Seljuk Turks" and not "Seljuk Persians" in the literature for a reason.

If there were a separate "court language" setting for dynasties, I agree that should have been Persian for the Seljuks. But as it stands, "culture" in CK pretty much means ethnic identity, so there is no doubt the Seljuks should be Turkish and not Persian.

 

[Shahanshah Rober]

The Seljuks are called "Seljuk Turks" and not "Seljuk Persians" in the literature for a reason.

If there were a separate "court language" setting for dynasties, I agree that should have been Persian for the Seljuks. But as it stands, "culture" in CK pretty much means ethnic identity, so there is no doubt the Seljuks should be Turkish and not Persian.

Bruh they talked Persian, like literally. Imagine speaking Persian language, dressing like Persians, funding Persian scholars but yet calling yourself Türk. Apart from genes (I still doubt seljuks were Turk in genes since they married Persians instead of Turks) they are Persian. But indeed they were persianised Turkish dynasty ruling persia.

 

[Zhetone]

Bruh they talked Persian, like literally. Imagine speaking Persian language, dressing like Persians, funding Persian scholars but yet calling yourself Türk. Apart from genes (I still doubt seljuks were Turk in genes since they married Persians instead of Turks) they are Persian. But indeed they were persianised Turkish dynasty ruling persia.

they were Turks, and when their dynasty expanded to Anatolia, they were Turks, they didn't spread Persian culture there.

 

[Nochin]

Bruh they talked Persian, like literally. Imagine speaking Persian language, dressing like Persians, funding Persian scholars but yet calling yourself Türk. Apart from genes (I still doubt seljuks were Turk in genes since they married Persians instead of Turks) they are Persian. But indeed they were persianised Turkish dynasty ruling persia.

It does not mean that when a clothing style and literature is used, a culture is assimilated by that culture. If that were the case, the Persians would also be Arabized. Persian language was used in literature and science, it is true.

According to your account, Turkish language is dead and They only define themselves as Turks, it is wrong. Turkish language was alive both in culture and spoken to the military and the dynasty. If the Seljuks were Persianized, Anatolian people would be speaking Persian instead of Turkish in Anatolia.

 

[Shahanshah Rober]

It does not mean that when a clothing style and literature is used, a culture is assimilated by that culture. If that were the case, the Persians would also be Arabized. Persian language was used in literature and science, it is true.

According to your account, Turkish language is dead and They only define themselves as Turks, it is wrong. Turkish language was alive both in culture and spoken to the military and the dynasty. If the Seljuks were Persianized, Anatolian people would be speaking Persian instead of Turkish in Anatolia.

Are you mad? Persians never adopted Arabic culture and language. They only took alphabet and made their changes to it and they were already using aramaic alphabet before Islam. Its same argument to call everyone in Europe uses Latin language since they use Latin alphabet and for clothing again, Persians took nothing from Arabs in clothing.

 

[Shahanshah Rober]

It does not mean that when a clothing style and literature is used, a culture is assimilated by that culture. If that were the case, the Persians would also be Arabized. Persian language was used in literature and science, it is true.

According to your account, Turkish language is dead and They only define themselves as Turks, it is wrong. Turkish language was alive both in culture and spoken to the military and the dynasty. If the Seljuks were Persianized, Anatolian people would be speaking Persian instead of Turkish in Anatolia.

Well, seljuks spoke Persian in court means they spoke Persian in court. And for anatolia being Türk, seljuks indeed made invasions and put Turkish tribes to there. They were Turkish dynasty after all, but what made anatolia real Turkish was Mongols putting even more Turks to anatolia and Greeks being dead because of black death. Adding more salt to injury, Greek and Pontic genocide made West Coast and North Sea completely Turkish while Armenian genocide made East Turkish, and south Eastern Turkey is still kurdish.

 

[elvain]

The Seljuks are called "Seljuk Turks" and not "Seljuk Persians" in the literature for a reason.

If there were a separate "court language" setting for dynasties, I agree that should have been Persian for the Seljuks. But as it stands, "culture" in CK pretty much means ethnic identity, so there is no doubt the Seljuks should be Turkish and not Persian.

Bruh they talked Persian, like literally. Imagine speaking Persian language, dressing like Persians, funding Persian scholars but yet calling yourself Türk. Apart from genes (I still doubt seljuks were Turk in genes since they married Persians instead of Turks) they are Persian. But indeed they were persianised Turkish dynasty ruling persia.

they were Turks, and when their dynasty expanded to Anatolia, they were Turks, they didn't spread Persian culture there.

The Great Seljuks were in fact both Persian and Turkic and none at the same time.

The Sultans and much of the dynasty became culturaly Persian - as @Shahanshah Rober correctly points out, they spoke Persian, dressed Persian, were inspired by Persian culture, legal and political traditions, their advisors and viziers were in 99% Persians.
When the last Great Seljuk sultan Ahmad Sanjar b. Malik Shah was captured by the Oghuz Turks in Khorasan in 1150's, he viewed those wild Turks as alien to his lifestyle, as have the Persians viewn his Great-grand father Chaghri beg. From this perspective the Great Seljuk Sultans of Persia were culturaly Persian.

At the same time, they still considered themselves Turks and kept some elements of Turkish culture. Reading the Siyasat-nama written for Sanjar's father Malik Shah, we can see that the book's Persian author complains about Seljuks being still too Turkish, relying too much on Turkish clan traditions of splitting the land, that they still favoured the nomadic bands which were devastating the land used by settled Persians.
And these Persian speaking and culturaly Persian Sultans kept refusing those requests of their viziers to get rid of these Tuskish traditions, they continued granting land and protected their wild Oghuz brothers (ironically enough the very same tribes who brought downfall of their Empire).
The Seljuk army was half based on Persian-style mercenary bands, Armenians, Daylamites, Kurds and Greeks and in the other half was the unchained, but very strong Oghuz tribes.

Why did the Seljuks in Anatolia then spread Turkish and not Persian culture? Because those weren't the Sultans. The Kilij Arslan was member of a side branch of the Seljuk dynasty and his sultanate of Rum was based on the unchained Oghuz tribal raiders, not the courtly Persianized Seljuk princes who ruled from great Persian cities of Isfahan, Balkh, Rayy.
Yet, later the Ottomans used a title Padshah and anyone familliar with Ottoman Turkish language can see that it had as many loan words from Persian as it had from Arabic.... and you can rest assured that most of the Arabic loan words got there because they became part of Persian language.

 

[Shahanshah Rober]

The Great Seljuks were in fact both Persian and Turkic and none at the same time.

The Sultans and much of the dynasty became culturaly Persian - as @Shahanshah Rober correctly points out, they spole Persian, dressed Persian, were inspired by Persian culture, their advisors and viziers were in 99% Persians.
When the last Great Seljuk sultan Ahmad Sanjar b. Malik Shah was captured by the Oghuz Turks in Khorasan, he viewed those wild Turks as alien to his lifestyle, as have the Persians viewn his Great-grand father Chaghri beg. From this perspective the Great Seljuk Sultans of Persia were culturaly Persian.

At the same time, they still consider themselves Turks, kept some elements of Turkish culture. Reading the Siyasat-nama written for Sanjar's father Malik Shah, we can see that the book's Persian author complains about Seljuks being still too Turkish, relying too much on Turkish clan traditions of splitting the land, that they still favoured the nomadic bands which were devastating the land used by settled Persians.
And these Persian speaking and culturaly Persian Sultans kept refusing those requests of their viziers, continued granting land and protected their wild Oghuz brothers (ironically enough the very same tribes who brought downfall of their Empire).
The Seljuk army was half based on Persian-style mercenary bands, Armenians, Daylamites, Kurds and Greeks and in the other hapf was the ever-incontrollable, but yet very strong Oghuz tribes.

Why did the Seljuks in Anatolia then spread Turkish and not Persian culture? Because those weren't the Sultans. The Kilij Arslan was member of a side branch of the Seljuk dynasty and his sultanate of Rum was based on the unchained Oghuz tribal raiders, not the courtly Persianized Seljuk princes who ruled from great Persian cities of Isfahan, Balkh, Rayy.
Yet, later the Ottomans used a title Padshah and anyone familliar with Ottoman Turkish language can see that it had as many loan words from Persian as it had from Arabic.... and you can rest assured that most of the Arabic loan words got there because they became part of Persian language.


quite a few important

YES you explained it very good my friend. I need oratory skills to explain myself well to not be misunderstood but you just described my opinion

 

[Nochin]

Well, seljuks spoke Persian in court means they spoke Persian in court. And for anatolia being Türk, seljuks indeed made invasions and put Turkish tribes to there. They were Turkish dynasty after all, but what made anatolia real Turkish was Mongols putting even more Turks to anatolia and Greeks being dead because of black death. Adding more salt to injury, Greek and Pontic genocide made West Coast and North Sea completely Turkish while Armenian genocide made East Turkish, and south Eastern Turkey is still kurdish.

I'm not going to argue with you about "genocide" here. So I ignore it and come to the real subject. I did not say that Persian is not spoken in the court. I said that the Turkish language speaks between the dynasty and the military. You are saying that they reject Turkish language and culture and fully adopt Persian language and culture. Or as you said, you couldn't explain yourself.

 

[Nochin]

The Great Seljuks were in fact both Persian and Turkic and none at the same time.

The Sultans and much of the dynasty became culturaly Persian - as @Shahanshah Rober correctly points out, they spoke Persian, dressed Persian, were inspired by Persian culture, legal and political traditions, their advisors and viziers were in 99% Persians.
When the last Great Seljuk sultan Ahmad Sanjar b. Malik Shah was captured by the Oghuz Turks in Khorasan in 1150's, he viewed those wild Turks as alien to his lifestyle, as have the Persians viewn his Great-grand father Chaghri beg. From this perspective the Great Seljuk Sultans of Persia were culturaly Persian.

At the same time, they still considered themselves Turks and kept some elements of Turkish culture. Reading the Siyasat-nama written for Sanjar's father Malik Shah, we can see that the book's Persian author complains about Seljuks being still too Turkish, relying too much on Turkish clan traditions of splitting the land, that they still favoured the nomadic bands which were devastating the land used by settled Persians.
And these Persian speaking and culturaly Persian Sultans kept refusing those requests of their viziers to get rid of these Tuskish traditions, they continued granting land and protected their wild Oghuz brothers (ironically enough the very same tribes who brought downfall of their Empire).
The Seljuk army was half based on Persian-style mercenary bands, Armenians, Daylamites, Kurds and Greeks and in the other half was the unchained, but very strong Oghuz tribes.

Why did the Seljuks in Anatolia then spread Turkish and not Persian culture? Because those weren't the Sultans. The Kilij Arslan was member of a side branch of the Seljuk dynasty and his sultanate of Rum was based on the unchained Oghuz tribal raiders, not the courtly Persianized Seljuk princes who ruled from great Persian cities of Isfahan, Balkh, Rayy.
Yet, later the Ottomans used a title Padshah and anyone familliar with Ottoman Turkish language can see that it had as many loan words from Persian as it had from Arabic.... and you can rest assured that most of the Arabic loan words got there because they became part of Persian language.

Certainly, Siyasetname is a great proof that the Seljuks still have their culture, but this game takes place in Alp Arslan's time. Turkish culture of the Seljuks was more dominant in 1066 compared to Malik Shah's period.

 

[elvain]

Certainly, Siyasetname is a great proof that the Seljuks still have their culture, but this game takes place in Alp Arslan's time. Turkish culture of the Seljuks was more dominant in 1066 compared to Malik Shah's period.

Actually not.
Siyasatnama and the events surrounding its creation is actually a great proof that already Alp-Arslan himself have given his children Persian cultural education (except for its military aspects), and that the education went that far that Malik-Shah was culturaly more Persian than Turkic, yet retaining his Turkic identity. On the other hand the Turkic military superiority was mirrored in the fact that the military was the main (and almost the only) in which the Turkish culture prevailed as dominant.
In all other aspects the great Seljuks have acknowledged Persian cultural superiority and adopted it. Persian political tradition was the one preferred in terms of government, while Turkic culture was prefered in the military.

But I should again emphasize, it was the sultans, their immediate family and other Seljuk maliks (princes) who got landed apanages. The other Turks, primarily the military commanders, retained their Turkic ways and customs.

Since the game can't really simulate this dichotomy, I have always thought the best way would be to have a melting pot culture for Seljuks, Ghaznavids and other strongly Persianized Turkish dynasties, which would simulate them being culturaly Persian, but keeping their Turkic identity and military traditions.

Anyway I'd like to urge both of you Nochin and Shahanshah Rober to refrain from your national emotions taking over this discussion. So far it was very nice and informative, and it would be nice if we could keep it that way... without persional or national attacks.

Spoiler

I'm not going to argue with you about "genocide" here.

I agree that this shouldn't be part of our discussion, because it has noting to do with the topic... and I strongly disagree with it being mentioned, because I consider it very fould move. OTOH, I must strongly oppose your attempt to refuse or degrade the Genocide.

No matter how much the Turks fail to recognize their responsibilities and how they try to make it less wrong by either denying it being genocide or denying their responsibility, it was not a "genocide" but Genocide. I know that Turkish education system and probably even national pride won't let you accept it as fact, but it doesn't mean that you can degrade it like this.
But as I said, it doesn't belong here, so let's just leave it.

 

[famaouz]

Since the game can't really simulate this dichotomy, I have always thought the best way would be to have a melting pot culture for Seljuks, Ghaznavids and other strongly Persianized Turkish dynasties, which would simulate them being culturaly Persian, but keeping their Turkic identity and military traditions.

I thought the melting pot culture of Persianized Turks is basically... 'Turkish' in-game? And 'Oghuz' is non-Persianized Turks? Unlike vanilla CK2, of course, which doesn't give distinction

 

[Endleofon]

@elvain, you make many insightful points, and I don't necessarily disagree with you on any of them; but if this amount of scrutiny were to be applied to every dynasty, it would be just as hard to assign a single ethnic label to any of them.

I stand by my argument that few things in history are as self-evident as the fact that the Seljuks, i.e. Seljuk Turks in historical literature, were, well, Turkish.

 

[Ostovar Hossein]

Blue as national colour in Iranian history, the symbol of heaven and spirituality, here beautifully represented in the sophisticated decorations of Imam Mosque in Isfahan’s main square Naqsh-e Jahan, or as in second picture Golestan palace in Tehran. Or in third picture, Purple Persian standart of Derafsh KavianiView attachment 580779View attachment 580784View attachment 580785

Green is the color of shia Islam which is a good pick for Persia but in this case it feels a bet too early the only shia dynasty in Iran would of been buyyid dynasty which is before saljuks.
In the 12th century, green was chosen as dynastic color by the (Shiite) Fatimids.
But again Iran wasn't majority shia until safavid era but in all honesty for me it doesn't matter but you have a point regarding color blue. Nice post!!

 

[elvain]

I thought the melting pot culture of Persianized Turks is basically... 'Turkish' in-game? And 'Oghuz' is non-Persianized Turks? Unlike vanilla CK2, of course, which doesn't give distinction

already when working on SWMH mod some 5 years ago I made this "diagram" how I think it should ideally be simulated.

Türk means Turkish.
Based on my later research I would say that the way to Türk/Turkish can go directly from Oghuz - the condition would be that the melting happens within e_byzantium, note that this works with the way how cultures work in CK2.

The point is: Turkish culture is today naturally associated with Anatolian Turkish, which is something slightly different from Persianized Turkish - the Persian influence is there strong and obvious (as can be confirmed by linguistic knowledge of Ottoman Turkish), but still a lot weaker than the Persian influence on Great Seljuks.

@elvain, you make many insightful points, and I don't necessarily disagree with you on any of them; but if this amount of scrutiny were to be applied to every dynasty, it would be just as hard to assign a single ethnic label to any of them.

I stand by my argument that few things in history are as self-evident as the fact that the Seljuks, i.e. Seljuk Turks in historical literature, were, well, Turkish.

Actually this scrutiny already is applied in CK2 on many other dynasties. IIRC, Ayyubids aren't Kurdish, but Egyptian. Idrisids or Rustamids aren't Bedouin and Persian respectively, but Maghrebi/Berber.
As I said, it is very tricky and it is very hard to be simulated propperly.

OTOH you might have been reading something what I haven't written. While I said that Seljuks were culturaly Persian, on which I insist and I am pretty confident that you won't be able to disprove this, I also repeatedly emphasized that despite that they still retained their Turkic identity and - almost exclusively military - aspects of Turkish culture. Hence I don't think - and I never said - that their ingame culture should be Persian.
Their ingame culture should be culture of Persianized Turks, as I suggested above.

 

[Endleofon]

I thought the melting pot culture of Persianized Turks is basically... 'Turkish' in-game? And 'Oghuz' is non-Persianized Turks? Unlike vanilla CK2, of course, which doesn't give distinction

This is an interesting idea, but it raises some questions: will later Turks who got less Persianate over time to the point of using Turkish (even if with extensive Persian influence) instead of Persian as official language such as the Ottomans revert to being Oghuz? What about minor Turkish nobility under the Seljuks who were never as Persianate as the ruling family, will they stay Oghuz all the way? I don't think these would make sense.

I think labelling Oghuz Turks who ruled Persia and other groups who are more or less their offshoots as "Turkish" makes sense, but this label should not be directly tied to affinity to the Persian culture, which fluctuated over time.

 

[Endleofon]

IIRC, Ayyubids aren't Kurdish, but Egyptian. Idrisids or Rustamids aren't Bedouin and Persian respectively, but Maghrebi/Berber.

Are we sure these are results of scrutiny and not of oversight though?

 

[DavidYung]

Are you mad? Persians never adopted Arabic culture and language. They only took alphabet and made their changes to it and they were already using aramaic alphabet before Islam. Its same argument to call everyone in Europe uses Latin language since they use Latin alphabet and for clothing again, Persians took nothing from Arabs in clothing.

This is patently false and goes against the nationalist sentiments this argument stems from.

The Persians did adopt the Arabic language, not just the script, and this was the case for well over a century. If you disagree with that, then why is the Shahnameh, a book that tried to reinvigorate Persian, such an important book and its author, Ferdowsi (940-1020), such a highly praised figure by Persian nationalists?

 

[elvain]

Are we sure these are results of scrutiny and not of oversight though?

Yes, based on my discussions with the devs I have good reasons to sure that it isn’t an oversight. Gameplay reasons.
Actually the setup in which Seljuks culturally convert Persia to Turkish culture in most of games is inconsistent with the devs approach elsewhere. But despite that and the facts I wrote above, having them as ingame Persians would be even more wrong than this.

This is patently false and goes against the nationalist sentiments this argument stems from.

The Persians did adopt the Arabic language, not just the script, and this was the case for well over a century. If you disagree with that, then why is the Shahnameh, a book that tried to reinvigorate Persian, such an important book and its author, Ferdowsi (940-1020), such a highly praised figure by Persian nationalists?

Hmmm… when we are at false arguments…

Actually, Shahnama is praised very well beyond just Persian nationalist circles. Perhaps because it’s one of the biggest epics of the time unparalleled across the Islamic world. It is praised also as expression of “Persian revival” – a period when local dynasties took power back from Arabic conquerors. Again, not just by nationalists, but also by historians studying the period. Among other reasons also as amazing source of contemporary culture.

It is also praised by linguists as a work, which has defined “New Persian” language as it evolved after Persia was incorporated into the Caliphate, and after it was heavily influenced by Arabic. Persians did not adopt Arabic language as their own language, although for 2 centuries Arabic became the language of the government. On the other hand, one should not ignore the fact that it was Persian political and governmental tradition which took over the Caliphate with the Abbasid revolution… and actually quite a few Arabic political/governmental terms are loanwords from old Persian, so the influences definitely went both ways, which would be impossible if Persians would completely adopt Arabic, don't you think?

Of course claiming that Persians weren’t in no way influenced by Arabs is a false claim, but it is equally false trying to deny it by claiming that Persians totally adopted Arabic language (which does read as they ceased to use their own, although a man of your erudition probably couldn't have meant it that way). It’s like saying that Germans, Hungarians or English adopted Latin (stopped speaking their languages), because all written official records in some period were in Latin. They did not.