I don't know how many times you played as Ottomans BUT in the 16th century Mamelukes are revolting in Cairo and Alexandria with big numbers!
They must add "The Celali rebellions" of 17th century in Anatolia.
Turkish Culture Really Needs A Redo (Or: This thread again)
- Thread starter Grand Historian
- 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.
I don't know how many times you played as Ottomans BUT in the 16th century Mamelukes are revolting in Cairo and Alexandria with big numbers!
They must add "The Celali rebellions" of 17th century in Anatolia.
I don't see this as a drawback. Byzantine resurgence from 1444 is already rediculous and if they can convert Anatolia to Orthodox I'm happy with Anatolia becoming the heartland of the Empire again.
Personally in my Byz games I always culture shift to Turkish to abuse the gigantic culture group... this is obviously far more absurd than reframing the Greek-Turkish conflict as a purely religious one but the game is happy to let you do it.
However that proximity effected how densely Yoruks populated where, and whether remained nomads or settled. Also the coastline was spared from Turkish rule for another 100 years.
Anadolu (Anatolia) and Rumeli (Rumelia) are region names, like Britain and Ireland
btw it won't be merging them into a single culture, but bring them into the same culture "group", like Hungarians and Romanians.
Last edited:
Alright ive seen the idea of a greek-turkish union so as a greek here is my 2 cents. It could definitely make sense history wise , the cultures were definitely more similar than turkish and arabian, and lets face it as long as the caucasus is one group we really cant ask for many similarities between groups however i really dont like it gameplay wise. The rebelion that ended in greek independance was just around the end timeline and there were at least 2 more minor greek rebelions within the games timeline that i know of.I dont think the possibility of greek rebellions should just go lingering between once in a million games and never. I also do like how the byzantine group is so special in that it highlights special provinces you should take and makes a bit more interactive than " here is a block without rebels. The general direction of conquest should be north. " i think more groups should be like that.
As for turkish i propose a union with azeris and kurds. This is to avoid an enormous iranian group creating a germany situation of expand at will.
As for turkish i propose a union with azeris and kurds. This is to avoid an enormous iranian group creating a germany situation of expand at will.
So is Navarre conquering Spain. Your point?
Yes, but I'm fairly certain the overwhelming majority of Byz players are staying Greek.
I'm sorry, could you please clarify what you mean by this?
So is Aegean, but they at least denote actual Turks.
I rephrased it. Turks ruled inner Anatolia for 100 years more by the time (1444). Greeks by nature are more coastal people and Turkmen shepards the opposite, which created another layer of more/less Greek influence.
"Aegea" would be the region name.
Are you seriously suggesting that Greeks and Turks are interchangeable? Because I believe that is what an Aegean culture would imply.
Semantics - my point still stands.
I have two articles for you:
Kose Mihal
Evrenos
Many of the people in Ottoman history whom appear in muslim names are in fact converts.
Ottomans of the 14th century were raiders; not necessarily Turkmeni but also converted Greeks. Greek lords shifted alliance to side with the rising power. One would assume, people of the region would have re-shifted their alignment with another wind of change.
Last edited:
Yes. And it was customary for Greek converts to Islam to adopt Turkish as their language along with Turkish customs and within a generation or so were considered, for all intents and purposes, Turks - especially evident in that the Ottoman administrated distinguished on basis of religion, not culture: Christians were Greeks and Muslims were Turks. That does not indicate cultural symbiosis but cultural conversion to accompany a religious change.
I believe @Chamboozer can explain it better than I.
In the Ottoman Empire your race was not matter but religion was. Any Sunni Muslim could get any title and ethnicity were not important. For example there was a time about 300 years without any Turkish Sadrazam (second man in the empire after Sultan).
Then have turkish culture switch groups by event?
And, having been to both, its about as similar as the extremes of the germanic culture group- language may not be the same, and religion too, but HOLY hell food and things along those lines are incredibly similar.
Yes, so it seems incredibly odd to merge the two together in a single abstracted culture based on the western edge of Anatolia when, a): there was a demarcated division between them, and b): when the Greek population of Anatolia was practically nonexistent given Timur.
Your argument is essentially that the situation you described isn't plausible, in a game where you can do lots of implausible things. My issues with Turkish being lumped along with all the Arabic cultures are that I think it's bad for gameplay, not because it's historically incorrect.
But they would be muslims. What I am saying is, they would have been easy to convert back to Orthodoxy and Byzantium wouldn't have suffered a culture penalty after that, in case of an unlikely revival of the Byzantine Empire. Also it is still better to leave the Greek alone for the Ottoman Empire because of the Dhimmi mechanic. I am trying to figure out a fine balance between gameplay and immersion here.
The ones who converted became Turks. Converts to Islam adopted Turkish language and customs. The remaining Greeks of Asia Minor - what few remained by the time Timur arrived - were usually focused in the larger towns and cities and thus were largely exterminated by his pillaging.
I'm... not so sure about that. But yes, if the Byzantines converted the Turkish population of Anatolia it is likely that they would have summarily adopted Greek culture, but that's not indicative of symbiosis - just that cultural conversion tended to accompany religious tastes.
Indeed. I mean, I have no problem with the idea of a costal Turkish group - far from it - just that I don't think it needs to be an amalgamation of the Turkish and (largely nonexistent) Greek populations.
Ah zo. So your only issue is with the name. Pontic and Cilician are also culturally loaded names then. Should think of better names, but it is not really possible to come with a 100% proper name. There has never been such official division with distinct labels.
Here are some made up suggestions:
Candaran (Pontic)
Karamanid (Yoruk)
Egeli (Aegean)
Chukurovan (Cilician)
Yeah - sorry. I really should have made that more apparent from the start.