Which gives them about as much legitimacy to succeed Byzantines as HRE had to succeed Western Rome. That is, 0%.
The Ottomans need to be renamed.
- Thread starter cardbird
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
In Byzantines to Ottomans case however, any real continuation of Roman Empire had finally and irrevocably ceased to be and Ottomans were the direct cause of that. Not that the legitimacy was true still but not really the same case with HRE or any other contenders to the claim.
It's a strange thing one notices, but we don't have nations written as "Incas." Additionally, we don't have "Mutapas" or "Mings." Does the "horde-style" naming of adding an 's' on the end only apply to Muslim nations?
After the conquest of Constantinople, Mehmed II had planned to take Rome to complete his legacy of Kaiser or Roman emperor, but he died just after taking only a bridgehead in south Italy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_invasion_of_Otranto ). Mehmed II and Suleiman I used Kayser title even without Rome. Also Suleiman I planned to invade Italy to take Rome but after the unsuccessful siege of Malta he abandoned.
In Eu4, if Ottoman Empire take Rome and Constantinople, it should be able to form "Roman Empire" or "Sultanate of Rome"..etc its name can be different anyway.
In Eu4, if Ottoman Empire take Rome and Constantinople, it should be able to form "Roman Empire" or "Sultanate of Rome"..etc its name can be different anyway.
Its not only that, its also inconsistent, for example there was no Morocco but Marinids, Algiers but Zayyanids, Tunisia but Hafsids, so some are called by their modern names while some have even a made up name like Tripoli. While Libya would suit here better for since ancient times the region was called Libya. However names like Algiers, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Egypte, Turkey, Persia are better because they are dynasty and government change compatible.
From EU1
Hafsids -> Tunisia
Marinids -> Morocco
Hawashims -> Hedjaz
Sa'uds -> Nejd
Safevids > Persia
Ottomans -> Turkey
Habsburgs -> Austria
Tripoli -> Libya
The Mameluks (Burji) -> Egypt
Nabhans -> Oman
Rasulids -> Yemen
Qasimis -> Sarjah
Last edited:
I can imagine how you pronounce Österreich when you can´t even write it ^^
Then the crim khanate family (djingis khan descendants) would take over. That was the agreement.
That doesn't make them European.
They look more like Arabs than Europeans.
Syrians look more like Europeans than Turks!
No. There's a difference...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripolitania
http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Libya.htm#Tripolitania
And the Kingdom of Tripoli:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilayet_of_Tripoli
Nope. That's an Ottoman province ruled by pashas. So not a kingdom.
Also in 1444 there wasn't a nation called Tripoli (besides the city itself). There was just a small patch of land (province Sirt) that belonged to Libyan tribe. However province Tripoli belonged to the Hafsids/Tunisia
http://www.timemaps.com/store/timemaps/2012/4/1453ad0202.jpg
http://worldhistorymaps.info/images/East-Hem_1400ad.jpg
http://geacron.com/en/?v=m&lang=en&...yyyyy&fi=-500&ff=1500&sp=2&e=0&rp=0&re=0&nv=2
http://www.euratlas.net/history/europe/1400/1400.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hafsid1400.png
I really like your over simplification of an entire country. Shows me how little you know of Turkey itself.
Without going on a rant, Turkey has many different people and is genetically diverse containing European, Arab, Persian and, Turkic haplotypes. If you've ever been to Istanbul its easy to see the different mixes, and no they don't all look like Arabs.
i dont want to make you sad but i look more like a european than an arab
on a side note, if you look at the faces of turks in ck2, they look like hindus. that's an absurd thing.
Its not only that, its also inconsistent, for example there was no Morocco but Marinids, Algiers but Zayyanids, Tunisia but Hafsids, so some are called by their modern names while some have even a made up name like Tripoli. While Libya would suit here better for since ancient times the region was called Libya. However names like Algiers, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Egypte, Turkey, Persia are better because they are dynasty and government change compatible.
From EU1
Hafsids -> Tunisia
Marinids -> Morocco
Hawashims -> Hedjaz
Sa'uds -> Nejd
Safevids > Persia
Ottomans -> Turkey
Habsburgs -> Austria
Tripoli -> Libya
The Mameluks (Burji) -> Egypt
Nabhans -> Oman
Rasulids -> Yemen
Qasimis -> Sarjah
Would love to see that in the game, at least until we add in dynamic dynasties for those tags.
Yeah, that always bugged me. Had hoped it was fixed in EU3, it's crazy seeing an independent "Tripoli" at the start. Sirte and Cyrenaica should be ruled by Berqa, if anything.