Turks and Mamluks

[klaus7]

Its been 100 hours since I have started to play but I have seen too many noticable problems about Turkic Nations.
So first of all, Turkish is not a cultural name and it's doesnt belong to Levantine group also Mamluks are also not Levantine.

Levantine

Turkic People

• Altai
• Azerbaijanis
• Balkars
• Bashkirs
• Chuvashes
• Crimean Karaites
• Gagauz
• Karachays
• Karakalpaks
• Kazakhs
• Khakas
• Krymchaks
• Kyrgyz
• Nogais
• Oghuz
• Qashqai
• Tatars
• Turkmens
• Tuvans
• Uyghurs
• Uzbeks
• Yakuts

-Anatolian Turks have Oghuz/Oguz/Ghuzz ethnicity.
-Mamluks have Kipchak group, which is under Turkic Peoples, as a ruler nation and Turkish language as a army and state language. But in nation they have Egyptian ethnicity which is an aryan nationalty.


I'm pretty sure a tittle like this opened times and times but Paradox fix plox.

 

[Oahkoah]

The levant culture group isn't meant to model actual real world ethnicity or linguistics, it is designed to increase the chance of the Ottomans expanding into Egypt the Arabia. Turkish used to be in a group with Azerbaijan and Turkmen\Khiva, I believe.

 

[Tufto]

Plus, if they make the Mamluks Turkic then they'll either convert all of the Levant to a Turkic culture or be brought down by anachronistic Arab nationalist revolts.

And of course the game starts in 1444, when most Mamluks and all of their rulers would have been Circassian, not Turkic.

It's just a limitation in the game design that has to be solved this way, really. A pity, but there you are.

 

[hashinshin]

Yes it's a shame that if they made the Mamluks Turkish that all their cultures would rebel.

If only they had for example +3 accepted culture slots.

 

[klaus7]

I was looking things way too historic so. On my point of view there should be goverment types that have another etchnicity than land culture even if there isnt first accepted culture on any of her provinces.

 

[klaus7]

Also Mamaluks were just an army before reforming their goverment so it should be acceptable. @Tufto

 

[darthxeion]

The levant culture group isn't meant to model actual real world ethnicity or linguistics, it is designed to increase the chance of the Ottomans expanding into Egypt the Arabia. Turkish used to be in a group with Azerbaijan and Turkmen\Khiva, I believe.

If thats really the case, than it would make far more sense to give turks the balkan or byzantine culture, because for the ottomans the balkan region and europe in general were far more important for them, than the middle east.

 

[Tufto]

because for the ottomans the balkan region and europe in general were far more important for them, than the middle east.

Complete nonsense. Ottoman expansion continued on both fronts, and their control of Egypt, the Red Sea Ports and Iraq were extremely important for the Ottomans. They expended a vast effort attempting to conquer Iran, which not only represented an equally serious physical threat but were also their prime ideological foe, representing an alternate form of Islam and promoting an aggressive anti-Sunni stance (at least in the 16th century). Plus the importance of the Anatolian and Indian Ocean trade routes.

Which areas of expansion/warfare/etc were the most important probably varied across time, and warfare in Europe/the Mediterranean was certainly important for the Ottomans, but I think it's extremely wrong to say that the Balkans were more important to them- such thinking is a leftover from the days when Middle Eastern empires were only studied in relation to Europe and not on their own terms.

Also Mamaluks were just an army before reforming their goverment so it should be acceptable. @Tufto

I'm not sure what you mean... and the Mamluks had been ruling Egypt for 200ish years in 1444.

 

[Roki_09]

I had an Idea about Culture overlap over a year ago.Cultures are discussed always...
I still think this is doable, so I will quote my self and link the topic:

What cultures need is an overlap.
Lets say same culture group and similar culture.

Lets take everybodies favorite Balkan for example.


You can put Croatia, Serbia and Bulgaria in same culture group, but similar cultures would not be same.

For Croatian you can put Austrian and Hungarian as similar cultures, even Venetian maybe.
For Serbian you can put Hungarian, Transylvanian, Albanian, Greek and Romanian.
For Bulgarian you can put Romanian, Transylvanian, Greek, maybe Albanian, and Turkish probably doesnt fit...


You can go as far as adding another thing that is like a super culture group, so Slavs would not get as big of a hit for taking other Slav land.
If Nitra takes Paris and Moscow it should make sense that Muscovites are less upset then Parisians.


Its just an idea. I didnt put too much thinking in this so dont go telling me how those cultures would not work as this guys wore white hats and those other guys wore blue hats, and they hated each other.

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...-historical-culture-map.976621/#post-21993103

 

[Naga Niome]

Plus, if they make the Mamluks Turkic then they'll either convert all of the Levant to a Turkic culture or be brought down by anachronistic Arab nationalist revolts.

And of course the game starts in 1444, when most Mamluks and all of their rulers would have been Circassian, not Turkic.

It's just a limitation in the game design that has to be solved this way, really. A pity, but there you are.

I am curious, how come the Mamlukes were Circassian? That's pretty far north. I figure they'd be ethnic Semitics. The situation sounds similar to the Galatian's inhabiting the Fayyum, except, they weren't nobility.

 

[Roki_09]

They were slave soldiers that revolted and took control over Egypt.

 

[Tufto]

I am curious, how come the Mamlukes were Circassian? That's pretty far north. I figure they'd be ethnic Semitics. The situation sounds similar to the Galatian's inhabiting the Fayyum, except, they weren't nobility.

A "Mamluk" in this context refers to a slave soldier. Armies composed of slaves became quite popular in the Islamic world from 'Abbasid times onwards (since they formed an independent power-base who had no ties to anyone but their master), and the borderlands of Islam, being full of easily enslavable soldiers, were popular locations for slave-taking and slave raids. Turks were particularly prized, as they quickly gained a reputation for being excellent soldiers.

The 'Ayyubid dynasty of Egypt was eventually deposed by their Mamluk slaves, but the new masters simply continued their old recruitment tactics of buying and shipping slaves down from markets on the frontiers. The Mamluk regiments were often organised ethnically, and there was a shift from rule by one particular Turkic regiment (the Bahri "dynasty") to a predominantly Circassian one (the Burji "Dynasty", who rule the Mamluks at the game's start) in the late 14th century.

 

[Ironside121]

Ahhh.. it's been years since release and these threads keep coming in..

War... War never changes.

 

[darthxeion]

Complete nonsense. Ottoman expansion continued on both fronts, and their control of Egypt, the Red Sea Ports and Iraq were extremely important for the Ottomans. They expended a vast effort attempting to conquer Iran, which not only represented an equally serious physical threat but were also their prime ideological foe, representing an alternate form of Islam and promoting an aggressive anti-Sunni stance (at least in the 16th century). Plus the importance of the Anatolian and Indian Ocean trade routes.

Which areas of expansion/warfare/etc were the most important probably varied across time, and warfare in Europe/the Mediterranean was certainly important for the Ottomans, but I think it's extremely wrong to say that the Balkans were more important to them- such thinking is a leftover from the days when Middle Eastern empires were only studied in relation to Europe and not on their own terms.

Sorry but what you are doing is actually totally nonsense, you may have a different opinion, which you can have, but before saying that my givin informations are nonsense, you should better back up what you saying with academical literature.
At least i can, so i recommend you strongly to read Boyar, Ebru (2007). Ottomans, Turks and the Balkans: Empire Lost, Relations Altered.
Besides Ebru Boyar is quite a very famous name under the academic professors who are specialized in ottoman history and still is to find as one of the leading figures in the middle east technical university (in Turkey). So your Opinion, which you may have, is based on nothing in saying middle eastern empires were onlly studied in relation to europe.
If you would have read her works, than you would know that she is comparing quite often the economic and infrastructure build ups of all regions in the ottoman empire.
And her works show very clearly that a majority of the ottoman investments went to the balkans. Ottoman interests in especially Iraq were quite limited in military aspects and save the trade routes and thats it. The ottomans build compared to the balkans, in Iraq nearly nothing. Even Anatolia as a whole didnt get as much attention as the balkans did.
Thats the very reason why Ebru Boyar describing it as a balkan empire and not a middle east empire.

 

[Tufto]

Sorry but what you are doing is actually totally nonsense, you may have a different opinion, which you can have, but before saying that my givin informations are nonsense, you should better back up what you saying with academical literature.
At least i can, so i recommend you strongly to read Boyar, Ebru (2007). Ottomans, Turks and the Balkans: Empire Lost, Relations Altered.
Besides Ebru Boyar is quite a very famous name under the academic professors who are specialized in ottoman history and still is to find as one of the leading figures in the middle east technical university (in Turkey). So your Opinion, which you may have, is based on nothing in saying middle eastern empires were onlly studied in relation to europe.
If you would have read her works, than you would know that she is comparing quite often the economic and infrastructure build ups of all regions in the ottoman empire.
And her works show very clearly that a majority of the ottoman investments went to the balkans. Ottoman interests in especially Iraq were quite limited in military aspects and save the trade routes and thats it. The ottomans build compared to the balkans, in Iraq nearly nothing. Even Anatolia as a whole didnt get as much attention as the balkans did.
Thats the very reason why Ebru Boyar describing it as a balkan empire and not a middle east empire.

You mean that book which specifically covers the late 19th and early 20th centuries and doesn't say anything about the early modern period? If you can find me an actual academic covering the period in question who considers the Balkans more important, then I'll happily consider the proposition.

 

[StriderLS]

Gameplay 》Realism. When Turkish was in the same culture group with Azeris and Khiva, expanding in the Middle East was not as rewarding as it is currently which is not realistic either.
I ignored most of the Arabian peninsula, (south/south-eastern parts mostly) because my resources were better spent everywhere else. (Persia, %100 Venice Trade Node etc.)
I'm content with 1.23 balance changes for this reason. Even if Ottomans are somewhat nerfed. And I LIKE playing Ottomans... So much new provinces to conquer and better trade goods-total development too. What makes it better is they are (almost) right culture/right religion. When you take it away, why you bother with Yemen first while eating Persia will get you way more? Now I gobble up all of levantine culture first and then go after Persia/india route