Turks

[Hagbart]

Originally posted by KaiserIsak
and the danish, ...

No not the Danish.

[Hagbart]

Good post btw.
Where is Isakistan Empire? In Norway or Denmark?

[Hagbart]

btw2: Making such long posts is not a good way to raise your postcount/day.

[Tiberius]

There is much to comment here, but i am starting to run out of time. But one things is for sure: 10 years of democracy is not alone the reason for they being ahead of the turks. I wished it was, because then all the problems of the world could easily be solved by the “hungarian way”

That wasn't my point, and you know it very well. You asked how the development have gone on the Balkans before the turks arrived and after the turks left. I answered to you from the point of view of Hungary: things had been going great before the turks arrived, and sucked after they left. Hungary had 3 prosperous/developing periods (including the current one): before the turks, after the turks (but they needed 200 years to recover from the turkish rule's "benefits") and after communism. Believe it or not.
More or less it is the same situation in all the other countries in the region.

Edited:
To be fair, I must admit that the 200 years of stagnation in Hungary's history (after the turkish occupation) is only partially because of the turks. The habsburgic rule from that period wasn't very helpful, either.

PS
I don't hate the turks, at least not for what they are today. I hate their past aggressions, and this is how (IMO) all the eastern european nations feel. But they were quite aggressive and expansionistic (heck, they even besieged Vienna; thank you, Sobieski!), and I don't see why are they supposed to be industrious/scientific. That's a non-sense.

[Blue Moose]

My two cents on this...

In general I have been a bit shocked and dismayed by what might be racism towards the Turks....hating all Turks for what some did in the past.

One needs to remember that in any culture there are good people, and there are bad people. You can't just write of a group of people for the actions of a few, nor can you write them off for the actions of their ancestors.

Take Nazi Germany. Admittedly, a terrible government regime, with many terrible people (though I hesitate to call anyone evil...Hitler, for instance, was clearly insane*). By and large though, the german people were and are good, decent folk. If anything, you should heed the warning of Nazi Germany. It takes great courage to stand opposed to a regime that slowly takes over your country and slowly feeds the fears of its citizens. Most people will merely sit on their hands and do nothing. Afraid for themselves perhaps, afraid to make a scene or single themselves out. It is probably related to the diffusion of responsibility, a noted sociological phenomenon. People tend not to take responsibility to solve problems or help someone else if there are others around who might do the job. 60 witnesses to a repeated beating and mugging of a person over the course of 30 minutes just sit and watch from their apartments, and none call the cops, for instance (this really happened).

On the other hand, I can agree that certain cultures and societies can be worse than others. Worse in the sense that they promote bad qualities in their members and treat others poorly. Others are better at this. Colonial Europe was a bad culture insofar as its interaction with non-European societies. The USA was a bad culture in how it interacted with the natives of America, and with slavery as well. In the past of any group of people, you can easily find such bad elements though...since the further back you go (in general), the more brutal people tend to be (in very, very broad terms).

So, I don't think it is fair to say something like "the turks are an evil people" or "the turks are brutal killers"....or anything like those two statements. Indeed, it doesn't sound like they were too much different than their neighbors (at worst). You could point out how the christians are "evil." The crusades, the inquisition, the time it took for them to admit Galileo was correct (though they never admitted how they treated him was wrong), current christian fundamentalism and bigotry towards Islam and other religions....and so on and so on. White Supremists often use a version of christianity to support themselves. Does this mean that Christianity is "evil?" No, of course not. These are the actions of a subset of christianity, but even more so, they are the actions of people....people that are seriously confused about how people should interact or even possessing mental problems. Merely dismissing them as "evil" is a dangerous practice to take, it encourages hate and bigotry, and seeing people not as people but as monsters. (Though people can do monstrous things). I find some of the simplifications that have been made very disturbing.

And no, this is not a rant about how Western Society is "evil"....because it has done a great many positive things as well as bad ones. I repeat, no society is fully good or fully bad (at least not yet...I have hopes with proper knowledge of the social sciences, we may get much closer to the former). You need to look at all the complex factors that make a person who he is, that make a society what it is. That includes taking into account the ignorances of that society.....past societies had not developed the sense of the value of human life and the value of other societies...the acceptance of difference. It takes time for such ideas to develop, and much more time for them to become an accepted part of society (indeed, I know of no current society that has reached this point fully). Being severely critical of the past without care for the evolution of societies is as bad as being critical of the people during the black plague for not having microbiotics. It is a fact that is seldom recognized.

One more thing...I do believe in an absolute standard of good, I am not a moral relativisit. That doesn't stop someone from being understanding though.

-Moose

*By insane I mean he suffered from severe psychological problems.

Edit: Noticed Grammer error number 1....noticed because it was quoted! Argh.

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by Blue Moose
In general I have been a bit shocked and dismayed by what might be racism towards the Turks....hating all Turks for one some did in the past.

I can't speak for others, but I don't hate all the turks for what they did in the past (but you will understand me that I don't love them, either, right?).
What I hate is the idea of having an industrious/scientific ottoman civ in my civ3 game. It would feel like they were the greatest benefactor of this region, who raised the Balcans to new heights of scientific, cultural and industrious devepoment; the saviour of Eastern Europe , while we all know they weren't.

Edited some typos

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by Tiberius

I can't speak for others, but I don't hate all the turks for what they did in the past (but you will understand me that I don't love them, either, right?).
What I hate is the idea of having an industrious/scientific ottoman civ in my civ3 game. It would feel like they were the greatest benefactor of this region, who raised the Balcans to new heights of scientific, cultural and industrious devepoment; the saviour of Eastern Europe , while we all know they weren't.

Edited some typos

Well...I for one don't know...I could use some more history knowledge. It is a bit hard to see the industrious at the moment, but perhaps it is there. I've seen an arguement or two for scientific though. Anyhow, it is possible they are looking at a totally different era than you are thinking about. I think someone here mentioned the Chinese, and how they were scientific and industrious at a time (and those were the original civ 3 traits), but changed. Anyhow, it doesn't sound like the Turks were any more a scourge than many other groups in the past. I'm mostly witholding judgement though.

-Moose

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by Blue Moose
Well...I for one don't know...-Moose

Sorry, I meant "we, eastern europeans".

[Tiberius]

Anyway, the ottoman rule was the darkest period in Hungary's history. (and I presume the greeks or the serbs or the romanians, etc, would say the same thing; but let them speak for themselves).

[Galvatron]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Don't get me wrong Turkey is the only fully functioning Democracy in the entire Islamic world

You must be kidding. Well some days ago I watched a documentation on TV about Turkey here is a little summarize of this "functioning Democracy":

.)opposition politicians disappear over night and never be seen again
.)inflation is sky high
.)corruption everywhere
.)the government can only reign because the military is on their side but there is a danger every day they might rebel
.)no infrastructure to speak of
.)parties were elected under very dubious situations (in some parts of turkey the party gets 99% of the votes; did some else also think there might be something wrong )
.) minorities were oppressed
.) people were put in jail or executed WITHOUT any investigations

Doesn’t really sound like a functional Democracy to me

[Hagbart]

Originally posted by Galvatron


You must be kidding. Well some days ago I watched a documentation on TV about Turkey here is a little summarize of this "functioning Democracy":

.)opposition politicians disappear over night and never be seen again
.)inflation is sky high
.)corruption everywhere
.)the government can only reign because the military is on their side but there is a danger every day they might rebel
.)no infrastructure to speak of
.)parties were elected under very dubious situations (in some parts of turkey the party gets 99% of the votes; did some else also think there might be something wrong )
.) minorities were oppressed
.) people were put in jail or executed WITHOUT any investigations

Doesn’t really sound like a functional Democracy to me

Well Galvatron.. have you visited Turkey? You make Turkey sound like it's some poor, war ridden African state with a military regime and a rebel guirilla army. It's not.
Turkey does not have/use the death penalty.
Eventually (nobody know when) the Turks will join the EU, and that requires something.

I'm not saying Turkey is a GREAT place, you are right that they have some big economical problems, but that can be improved.

You can't base your knowledge of a country on some bad documentary.

[Palaiologos]

Originally posted by Tiberius
Anyway, the ottoman rule was the darkest period in Hungary's history. (and I presume the greeks or the serbs or the romanians, etc, would say the same thing; but let them speak for themselves).

Trust me it was.

And as for the "objective" people in this thread keep in mind this: You have several times mentioned that the Turks were no worse than many conquerors in history.
You have mentioned in particular the USA who took Indian lands. How do you think the Indians saw it? I think that they considered whites a scourge, who took their lands simply because they wanted them, without the Indians doing anything to provoke them.
We Balkanians see the subject from the "Indian" point of view.

And even this comparison is unfair because the Indians and the Zulus were conquered by a "superior" civilization that had something to offer (technology, wealth). The Turks were BACKWARD BARBARIANS FROM THE STEPPES that only brought misery to the people who conquered.


And how can you people judge our history?

You Americans have never experienced occupation and can never see things our way.

[KaiserIsak]

Originally posted by Hagbart


No not the Danish.

Ever heard about the bloodbath of Stockholm in 1523?
Isakistan Empire is useally in Civ, but i live in Norway. And thanks for your comments danish brother.

Great post Blue Moose (=

Originally posted by Tiberius
I can't speak for others, but I don't hate all the turks for what they did in the past (but you will understand me that I don't love them, either, right?).
What I hate is the idea of having an industrious/scientific ottoman civ in my civ3 game. It would feel like they were the greatest benefactor of this region, who raised the Balcans to new heights of scientific, cultural and industrious devepoment; the saviour of Eastern Europe , while we all know they weren't.

Well, it is a fact that their modern weaponry was the mayor reason for their conquests. So i think scientific is fine. And not everybody can be militaristic/expantionist (even if they all should be). And i think it is wrong to give all non-christian civ religious, while christianity may historicly be the religion with most the fundamentalist. I feel industrious are fine, did you know that they even started a great channel project from the Don river to Volga, to bind the caspic ocean to the black sea? And what about the magnificent blue mosque? And the Topkapi palace? They also had one of the greatest fleets at that time, and you definatly need industry to have that. I still agree that industrious may not be right, but scientific is good. And industrious is not so bad that its a problem. There are many civs with worse special advantages (like china without scientific).

Originally posted by Palaiologos




Trust me it was.

And as for the "objective" people in this thread keep in mind this: You have several times mentioned that the Turks were no worse than many conquerors in history.
You have mentioned in particular the USA who took Indian lands. How do you think the Indians saw it? I think that they considered whites a scourge, who took their lands simply because they wanted them, without the Indians doing anything to provoke them.
We Balkanians see the subject from the "Indian" point of view.

And even this comparison is unfair because the Indians and the Zulus were conquered by a "superior" civilization that had something to offer (technology, wealth). The Turks were BACKWARD BARBARIANS FROM THE STEPPES that only brought misery to the people who conquered.


And how can you people judge our history?

You Americans have never experienced occupation and can never see things our way.

Well, i use other examples just to say that the turks were not any worse than anyone else (the white in the US for example). And i would respond in excacly the same way if an indian would say that white people are evil, because they are not more evil then the turks, or the indians themselves. It is not "allowed" to say that anyone is evil only because there have been done bad things in the past.
And talking about "superior" civilizations is nonsense. Have the indians becomed more happy (and happiness is more important than "civilization") after the conquest? Probably not.
And about "backward barbarians........", i wont even comment it, this is a ridiculous statement.

And we will judge your history as long as you yourself are to patriotic to be objective.
I am not american, i am norwegian, and in my lifetime we have never been occupied, but what about you, have you lived to see your country being occupied?
My country was occupied by first Denmark, and then Sweden for more then 500 years, but so what? I dont blame the danish/swedish? They did not do it. It was their former leaders that did it, not even the former peoples of those countries. And the leaders? They are dead, and were not any worse then what our leaders would have been if they had that same power.

[Oerdin]

Saying the Ottoman government wasn't worse then anyone else is like saying the Nazis weren't worse then anyone else. You may feel what they did was with in normal bounds but 6 million Armenians who were shot and starved to death by the Turkish government would probably disagree with you.

The American government didn't treat the indians very well but it would not be truthful to say they commited genocide against them either. In 1492 it is estimated there were between 50-75 million people living in the Americas by 1600 it is estimated there were only 3-4 million indians left. Please note that this is nearly two centuries before the U.S. even existed and nearly all of the indians that died during this period died without ever seeing a white man. They died from outbreak of out world desieses which spread from indian to indian.

As for slavery every European power practiced it and the U.S. ended its perticipation in the Atlantic slave trade in 1802 (just 20 years after the end of the revolutionary war); long before the major European powers. Many members of the government tried to end slavery entirely but they were blocked by an entrenched minority of slave holders in the southern states; never the less they were successful in ending slavery in half the country by 1802 (it countinued in the south until the civil war finally put a stop to the southern institiution of slavery).

[Oerdin]

I'd also like to point out that the Turks "ethnically cleansed" several million Greeks between 1920 and 1925 plus the Armenian genicide occured between 1910-1918. There are still eye witnesses alive today who saw both of these event as they happened.

Your examples of American treatment of slaves is nearly 150 years old and your example of European treatment of indians is between 500 and 400 years old. I think it is reasonable to expect modern states to behave in a better manner then occured half a millenia ago.

[Kingof the Apes]

I do not understand at all why Firaxis made the Ottomans Scientific/Industrius.

They should be either militaristic/expansionist or commercial/expansionist.

The reason for tis is that the Ottoman empire could only get more powerful by conquering more trade routes to controltrade that went from China to Europe.As soon as they stopped taking more and more trade routes, they started losing money and power. Also, a new route was discovered that led to China from Europe, and the Ottomans did not control it, so they were pretty much 'over', at least financially.
Later I believe they were called the 'Sick Man of Europe'.

[Blue Moose]

Here's some information (perhaps with some small biases, but it seems quite good overall) on the genocide by Turky in the early 1900s.


hmm, looking around on the internet though...it seems like the Turks were fairly kind towards other religions...at least in the middle ages...the early 1900s (at least) they seemed to be controlled by very, very militant and bigotted dictatorships (more or less dictatorships, anyhow), that played upon the worst parts of human nature (unhappiness with their decreasing power in the world, and so forth). Very similar to how Nazi Germany came about, actually. I don't think it is fair to judge the entire Turkish history from this though, no more than it is fair to judge the Germans solely by Nazi Germany. Certainly these were terrible, terribly events, but not something you judge an entire people on (just like you don't judge the founding fathers of America for not fighting harder to outlaw slavery in the constitution).

Here's some more info on the turks I found. Seems like, as some have said, Militaristic and Commercial are the best traits. If they are being based on the Seljuk period. Both seem necessary...you could argue expansionist, but that doesn't quite fit well, and neither does religious.

I'm going to read up on what the Outline of History has to say (it's by H.G. Wells, a good general world history book).

Oh, also...I can judge whoever's frickin' history I want. You can judge mine too. That's how free inquiry and free flow of thoughts and information work. Heck, Palaiologos, you're judging turkish history, when only a tiny, tiny part of that is part of your own culture's history, so try not to be a hypocrit. Though I'm not a christian, I've always liked to think that the bible's "Judge not, lest ye be judged" statement means more that you should be prepared to be judged, just as you judge. Heh, though that's a very errant side thought. The point is that you can benefit from another person's perspective if you keep an open mind...well...often you can benefit, usually you can understand the other person better. Sometimes it can help you realize possible biases you might have in yourself. That's my experience, anyhow. Hmm...I suppose this could be argued a bunch of ways...including this one: the history of Earth and humans is my history, hence I am judging my own history...but that arguement would miss the point IMHO. If we meet an intelligent alien race someday, I think it would be perfectly fine for us to judge their history and them to judge ours. The trick is to make sure you understand all the nuances, interelations, and limitations of the past. A tough trick to master.

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by Kingof the Apes
I do not understand at all why Firaxis made the Ottomans Scientific/Industrius.

They should be either militaristic/expansionist or commercial/expansionist.

The reason for tis is that the Ottoman empire could only get more powerful by conquering more trade routes to controltrade that went from China to Europe.As soon as they stopped taking more and more trade routes, they started losing money and power. Also, a new route was discovered that led to China from Europe, and the Ottomans did not control it, so they were pretty much 'over', at least financially.
Later I believe they were called the 'Sick Man of Europe'.

Indeed they were later called that...but their decline was more due to the increasingly corrupt government and military they had...I think that started in the 16th century, and became worse and worse. At the height, Militaristic and Commercial seem the most appropriate. You can't judge them on their falling years, I don't think. I think any declining commercial empire loses the commercial aspect first, for instance (or at least that goes away very quickly).

[Palaiologos]

Blue moose you have misunderstood me. I think my English were bad.

When i said that you should not judge our history, i meant that you shouldn't speak for things that we Greeks know better(about the Turkish occupation).

Of course anybody can judge anything.

That is the idea behind the Greek Golden Age of classical times.

[Blue Moose]

Ahh, my mistake then, sorry. I am trying to indicate my ignorance where it exists though. It does seem that Turkish civilization did have some things going for it....middle age era Turkish civilization, anyhow (from what I have read). I'd say that being invaded by someone can make a culture have an irrational dislike for them (such attitudes can easily get permeated throughout a society, and people are raised believing them). So that's a concern of mine (and it seems to be somewhat valid).
From what I've read, it sounds like there were times when Turkish rule was pretty good (as best one can expect considering they did take over new lands). Once they'd established order in an area, they let different peoples follow their own customs. Whereas at other times things were very bad. It doesn't seem any worse than say the Romans or other conquering cultures. Admittedly some Turkish rules were, much, much worse (particularly the first few decades of the 1900s). I think Civ III is trying to take the best era of the culture though...or at least they should (they are a bit confused history-wise). Hmm, I think I am rambling now.

[Palaiologos]

And Kaiserisaak i don't think Swedish occupation of Norway can be compared to the Ottoman conquest.
This is ridiculus, not my statement for barbarian Turks.

Norway, Sweden, Denmark, these are all culturally linked nations.

But Greece ,Hungary, Serbia etc were conquered by Asians.

You know if the Turks were really great guys that brought stability and prosperity in a war-torn region why every Balkanian considers their rule as the worst period of their history?

You forget that peoples have historical memories of their past. That is what binds them and forges their national identity. It doesn't matter if you have never personally experienced occupation.

And as for the argument "It was their evil leaders who are dead now ,not the people" it is one we hear often in Greece by the lefts. It seems none of you "objective" and "enlightened" persons can grasp the simple notion that leaders and commoners act in accordance. The most "evil" of dictators will not dare do something that will outrage the majority of the nation.

In 1922 the turks killed thousand of greeks and before that armenians. Their leader's orders were to kill all foreigners. NO turk objected to that. And the horrible ways (tortures, rapes etc) that the orders were executed were a personal touch of the common Turkish people not a direct order.

[Oerdin]

I agree that the Turks should be Militistic/Commercial. Religious doesn't apply because they are the least religious of all Muslim states and Expansionist, while fitting some periods, just isn't as discriptive as Mil/Com.

[Palaiologos]

I don't understand why they should be commercial.

Even after the conquest of Constantinople it was the Venetians who took over trade not the Turks.

They should definately be militaristic since as i have stated before, their military tradition left its impact on the Islamic world.

As for their second trait i would suggest expansionist. Once the Ottoman Empire stopped expanding it fell in decline. Every area they conquered they settled it with Turks.

[XOR]

What was commecial about the Ottomans?

I can understand ancient mediterranean Civs like Carthage, Roman, Minoan, Greek, etc were commercial.

I can understand England was predominantly commecial as it's colonies were mostly of commercial nature. (but I dont see how the french were). I dont know much about India so they can be anything you want. But the Ottomans just dont seem any commecial to me.

[Blue Moose]

During the Seljuk period, the Turks greatly encouraged trade. This was around 1000CE-1200CE. They even had a state insurance system for traders and caravans.

Also, they were not that harsh with people of other faiths. Once order was restored in a conquered territory, the lot of those living there was much the same as before.

Hmm, looking things over though.....that wasn't the Ottoman empire, it was an earlier Turkish Kingdom. For them perhaps Militaristic and Expansionist are best....but I'll look into it more.

[Hagbart]

All civs tru history did trade, so all of them could be commercial. Some traded more than others though.

[Hagbart]

The Romans could just as well have been Militaristic/Expansionist as Commercial. But we have already lots of Militaristic/Expansionist civs. It seems like being that was quite popular!

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by Palaiologos
And as for the argument "It was their evil leaders who are dead now ,not the people" it is one we hear often in Greece by the lefts. It seems none of you "objective" and "enlightened" persons can grasp the simple notion that leaders and commoners act in accordance. The most "evil" of dictators will not dare do something that will outrage the majority of the nation.

You just don't understand how people operate. You have a romantized notion that good people don't ever do anything bad, that they can't be slowly tricked into committing acts of great evil. Smart 'evil' leaders know this, and they know that to get people to do what they want, steps need to be taken slowly. Get the people to agree to a small reasonable thing, then a small unreasonable (but related thing), then you keep taking such steps and you can get them to agree to a very large unreasonable thing. This is a simple facet of human psychology.

Also, if President Bush of the United States causes the US to attack Iraq, does that mean that all US citizens are in favor of the attack? Does that mean that even most of them are in favor? No, it doesn't. Leaders can do things that aren't popular, and they often do. If they have enough power, they can afford to outrage a lot of the nation. Or they can simply not bother to inform the populace of everything...paint the facts to look more favorable. People seldom rebel from being merely disgruntled (so changing facts slightly to accomplish this instead of outrage could be very effective).

People also have a disturbing tendency to simply listen to authority. Studies were done in the US a couple decades ago (these studies would now be illegal). In these studies, a volunteer participant was told he was going to play a role in testing how learning is affected by punishment. He read a list of words to the other volunteer, and then had the volunteer recite the list back. When the learner made a mistake, the teacher was to give him an electric shock. The shock would produce a noticeable reaction of pain. With each mistake the teacher was to increase the power of the shock. The psychologist running the experiment would be present, and he'd tell the teacher to continue, that the study must be completed, and other rehearsed lines. The teacher would continue. The teacher would almost always continue even after the learner stopped even attempting to recite the list and just started moaning in pain. The teacher almost always went to the highest setting. The teacher would go there even after the learner had been yelling out in anguish. Even after the learner stopped making any sound or movement, the teacher would continue. All it took was a little encouragement from the researcher, the authority figure. Similar studies were done as well. The further away the learner was, the more likely the teacher would continue (and he'd have less difficulty too). Distance includes things like looking at him through a tv, an so forth. The futher the authority figure, the more difficulty the teacher would have. Nonetheless, the studies showed a disturbing tendency for humans to listen to an authority figure even if they felt what they were doing was wrong (followup after the 'teaching' was over). Of course, the whole thing was a setup, the "learner" was the researcher's assistant, and was connected to no device that would administer shocks, he simply faked the pain. The fact is though, that there are elements of human nature that are just damn unpleasent....elements we'd rather have not be true. We'd like to think that humans only ever do what they want to do, but that simply isn't the case. Live with it. There are things you can do to help people be resistant, but the fact is that it is not an easy thing. Americans love their independence, so they have strong cultural force acting against obedience to authority.....yet they obeyed very, very often. So have some compassion for people that do bad things, and don't blame those that weren't involved (because similarly they have even a smaller chance of doing anything).

Sounds like the left wing in your country has these ideas down better than the right....though this isn't too unusual. Your philosophy seems pretty draconian and primitive in comparison; it hasn't adapted to modern knowledge of human psychology.

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by Hagbart
The Romans could just as well have been Militaristic/Expansionist as Commercial.

Or militaristic and industrious, I think.

[Oerdin]

I agree mil/exp would fit nicely but we do have 3-4 mil/exp already. Surely we should make some attempt to diversify the civs CSAs.