Oppositions to Arabs

[Traelin]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
"Extending from Central Asia to the Byzantine marches in Asia Minor, the Seljuk state under its first three sultans- Tughril Beg, Alp-Arslan, and Malikshah- established a highly cohesive, well-administered Sunni state under the nominal authority of the 'Abbasid caliphs at Baghdad."

This is how I've always seen the Seljuks. Certainly a new ethnic group but significantly absorbed by the Arab civ. Not dominating it.

Uh-uh. The Seljuks' ethnographic/cultural ideology overpowered the typical Arab culture. Sec, I'm going to check it real quick......

OK actually here's a really good website, it highlights most of the stuff I've been saying.

http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/society/A0856671.html

Quote: "The emergence of the Seljuk Turks in the 11th cent. and of the Ottoman Turks in the 13th cent. ended the specifically Arab dominance in Islam, though Muslim culture still remained on the old Arab foundations."

[Traelin]

Woot! gs you may had dibs on the 30th page, but I have the 600th post!!

[gsmoove23]

Seljuk Turks only ruled in central asia and Asia minor under the nominal authority of the Abassid Caliphate. I think what that statement is suggesting is that the arab ethnic group no longer had a monopoly of control over Islamic people starting from the 11th C. I've never seen anything to suggest the Seljuks overshadowed the Arabs. Plus the website you've found paints a pretty picture for arabic involvement in the foundations of Western thought.

Give it up, they deserve a spot in the first 16.

I'm not bitter about 600. Notice you were pretty quiet until you got it. Sneaky son of a b**ch.

EDIT - Turks for Arabs

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by Traelin

But the Arabs -- at least in their current CivIII state -- should not be in over the Dutch. No no no. I'd be a bit happier about the Arabs being in if Abu Bakr wasn't the leader.

Hmmm... Maybe I should posit "Ozymandias' Two Great Questions":

1. What is a Civ, not only in the context of the Civ "engine" but within the context of whatever "scenario" is being played ... AND ...

2. Where do we "best" draw the line between "game" and "simulation"?

Having helped in the design of quite a few wargames back in the longago 1970s, I can assure you I've chewed over the second quite a bit, and ultimately it has three components:

1. How popular (marketable to the largest popular audience) do you wish it to be -- with wargames, of course it was an interesting line between detail and generalization, because there are quite a few well-informed armchair generals out thers

2. How much detail is required to satisfy your and/or your audience's sense of verisimillitude

3. How well can the "engine" -- the "rules" -- accommodate any desired aspect.

It's as impossible to argue against the Dutch as against the Portuguese, yet both, in the context of a "real world" Civ map, lead to the same -- I'll be corporate here and call them "challenges" instead of "problems" .

Both would need to begin in really congested space -- and how can the Civ AI be made to emulate their historical global impact? I'm REALLY curious about this for my own modding purposes ...

Along these lines -- Does anyone have any experience using Victory Locations yet? Would the AI make an effort to, say, take a European Civ halfway around the world to nab critical locations for nearly any era, say, the Straits of Malacca?

Any ideas?

All the Best,

Oz

[gsmoove23]

The Aztecs dominated Mexico, conquering isn't a prerequisite, without the aid of domesticated horse or any large beasts of burden. This is no small feat, all things being relative. My idea isn't to rate a civ absolutely but relative to its competitors.

"Ahh but the difference is that the Arabs are best represented as a theocratic culture. So when many of their cultural figures are Christians and Jews, that does dilute some of their claims to fame. The Dutch are not considered a theocracy and thus it doesn't matter what religion Henry Hudson was."

You've created your own logic here. First of all it is your assertion that "many" of their cultural figures were christian and jewish suggesting that they made some disproportionate contribution which they did not. A suprising number of jews and christians made a contribution to arab society considering its a theocratic society and this is simply a byproduct of a relatively open and liberal society for the time. How does being a theocratic society allow you not to count contributions of other religious groups to that society. They grew up in an arab civ, enjoyed the learning of an arab civ and contributed to an arab civ. Unless your arguing that the mindset of a christian or jew is more scientifically inclined then an arab I really don't see the point anyway.

"When the Arabs spread into previously-held Roman/Byzantine territory, it was when the Byzantines were primarily known for their culture, not their military strength. That is, they were known for passing on their Greek and Roman culture to the Arabs."

Your doing a lot of intellectual gymnastics here. The Byzantine Empire was still a major power in the world, certainly a greater power then any European kingdom at the time, until the Turks. The point is at the time of their ascendancy the Arabs were unrivaled powers in the world as well as being scientifically unrivaled, at least in the western world. Why do I have to argue for this so much.

"Exactly my point gs, that the Ottomans are to the Arabs as the Byzantines are to the Romans. It's kinda hard to distinguish between the two, in the sense that the Ottomans "evolved" (for lack of a better word) from the Arabs, much like the Byzantines really were the Romans of the East. "

They are distinct civs, different languages and many more differences, I'm referring to my rather loose definition of civilization where I don't see hard lines between civs, and could easily imagine my civ evolving from the Romans to the Byz without much problem while I also see no problem with starting as the Byz. I would prefer Arabs in the 1st 16 and the Ottomans in the next 8 or later, same for the Romans and Byz.

I see the Arabs as more important because they had a far more spectacular rise and the Ottomans golden age pales in comparison to the Arabss relative to their contemporary civs. Influence in the last 100 years? Why should that matter at all, but certainly the Arab civ has had just as much influence this century for someone who argues the Hebrew's case.

[gsmoove23]

I would love if civilization could really replicate a colonial civ. Its my favorite way to play, Placing colonies all over in strategic or resource rich locations. The AI already sorta does this, placing colonies in any godforsaken place for no reason but it doesn't no how to defend these places.

[Zero]

are we just trying to go for the records now? after about 16 different offtopics.. this thread is going strong!!!

[Traelin]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
The Aztecs dominated Mexico, conquering isn't a prerequisite, without the aid of domesticated horse or any large beasts of burden. This is no small feat, all things being relative. My idea isn't to rate a civ absolutely but relative to its competitors.

It's a big enough feat to include them as a Civ, but a small enough feat to suggest that their accomplishments are dwarfed by many other Civs. The only reason I could see including them in the original 16 (which I did) is for geographic reasons.

Originally posted by gsmoove23
You've created your own logic here. First of all it is your assertion that "many" of their cultural figures were christian and jewish suggesting that they made some disproportionate contribution which they did not. A suprising number of jews and christians made a contribution to arab society considering its a theocratic society and this is simply a byproduct of a relatively open and liberal society for the time. How does being a theocratic society allow you not to count contributions of other religious groups to that society. They grew up in an arab civ, enjoyed the learning of an arab civ and contributed to an arab civ. Unless your arguing that the mindset of a christian or jew is more scientifically inclined then an arab I really don't see the point anyway.

Many of their cultural figures were Christians and Jews. Many, but by no means "most". And in no way am I arguing that a Christian or Jew is more scientifically inclined than an Arab. What I'm saying is that it is significant to note that a theocratic Civ had several important figures in its "culture" that did not share the same, hrm, Civ-esque traits that it shared. You don't see this with the Israelis, the Aztecs, the Japanese, or any other theocratic Civ that I can think of.

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Your doing a lot of intellectual gymnastics here. The Byzantine Empire was still a major power in the world, certainly a greater power then any European kingdom at the time, until the Turks. The point is at the time of their ascendancy the Arabs were unrivaled powers in the world as well as being scientifically unrivaled, at least in the western world. Why do I have to argue for this so much.

The Roman (err, Byzantine) Empire was NOT at its height of power by any means. Their Golden Age had long since passed. That is certainly irrefutable. But I am certainly not suggesting that the Arabs didn't have a significant impact on that region of the world. What I am saying is that, even with their achievements, they were more affected by other cultures than most of the other Civs in the game. And there is NO way they should be in the original 16. Most of the things they are notorious for are spinoffs of Greek and Roman culture and studies.

Originally posted by gsmoove23
They are distinct civs, different languages and many more differences, I'm referring to my rather loose definition of civilization where I don't see hard lines between civs, and could easily imagine my civ evolving from the Romans to the Byz without much problem while I also see no problem with starting as the Byz. I would prefer Arabs in the 1st 16 and the Ottomans in the next 8 or later, same for the Romans and Byz.

Dude you can't include the Byzantines when you include the Romans, it makes absolutely no sense. They were the Eastern portion of the Roman Empire and were really a result of the influx of Christianity in Roman culture, as well as the capital shift to Constantinople and other such events. Yes, they had their own distinct effects on history, but they were Romans proper. If for no other reason, you can't include both the Ottomans and the Byzantines because they shared the same capital with the same name. Constantinople didn't have its name changed until 1930.

The Ottomans were just as much an effect of the Arabs as the Byzantines were the Romans. It is a very similar situation. Note that I'm not saying they are identical situations, but they are so similar that I would make the same argument in both cases. Either include the Romans or Byzantines, and either the Arabs or Ottomans, but not both. It just doesn't make any sense. I haven't seen any historical evidence to dissuade me, and in fact have found much to support my opinion.

How you can include the Arabs over any of the original 16 Civs (except maybe the Zulus) is a mind-boggler to me. But then again, there's a couple of other Civs I'd include over the Zulus, too.

Originally posted by gsmoove23
I see the Arabs as more important because they had a far more spectacular rise and the Ottomans golden age pales in comparison to the Arabss relative to their contemporary civs. Influence in the last 100 years? Why should that matter at all, but certainly the Arab civ has had just as much influence this century for someone who argues the Hebrew's case.

That's fine if you see the Arabs as more important. Then we should include them, but not the Ottomans. I think influence in the last 100 years is *somewhat* important. Not the be all, end all, but still it's somewhat important. IMHO I like getting to play against countries and Civs in recent history. I dunno, it gives me a feeling of power when I flex my biceps over them.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by Traelin

Dude you can't include the Byzantines when you include the Romans, it makes absolutely no sense. They were the Eastern portion of the Roman Empire and were really a result of the influx of Christianity in Roman culture, as well as the capital shift to Constantinople and other such events. Yes, they had their own distinct effects on history, but they were Romans proper. If for no other reason, you can't include both the Ottomans and the Byzantines because they shared the same capital with the same name. Constantinople didn't have its name changed until 1930.

The Ottomans were just as much an effect of the Arabs as the Byzantines were the Romans. It is a very similar situation. Note that I'm not saying they are identical situations, but they are so similar that I would make the same argument in both cases. Either include the Romans or Byzantines, and either the Arabs or Ottomans, but not both. It just doesn't make any sense.

*sigh*

1. The "Byzantine" Empire certainly stems from the final division of the Roman Empire into two sections, for administrative purposes in 395 CE (note that this follows about a century of chaos over trying to administer the Empire with two "co-emperors", Constantine "the Great" having begun as one such, seizing the throne of the west in 312 and becoming sole ruler in 324; he renamed "Byzantium" "Constantinople" in 320, initially intending it as the "Christian" capitol of the empire as opposed to the pagan one in Rome.

Often ignored, but of HUGE importance, was his decision to divert all Egyptian wheat from Rome to Byzantium in 328.

By this time, what most of think of as the "classic" Roman Empire was long gone. Citizens were stripped of their rights; peasants, in a foreshafowing of feudalism, were tied to the land; artisans were forced to supply the army at fixed rates.

Critical differences East and West:

(a) in considering the "fall" of the Roman empire, astonishingly few people comment on how vastly more urbanized the east was than the west -- and thereby wealthier, with access to more trading partners etc. (this obviously predates the sack of Rome by the Vandals in 455 -- the capitol had actually been removed to Ravenna in 404). In short, the different entities actually had very different economic infrastructures.

(b) the eastern empire was dominated by a different culture than the west -- Greek speaking and "minded"

(c) the same problems of scale which had made ruling the combined empire unwieldy in the first place was echoed in early Christianity, with separate authority going to western and eastern patriarchates -- and confounded by a plethora of "heresies", more plaguing in the west than east as (I would argue) there were more cultures/tribes/civs to convince and incorporate than in the east.

(d) the "Byzantines" utilized a different military structure than anything Caesar would have recognized.

-- all these factors (and some brilliant generalship) led to a "golden age" for Byzantium in the 6th century when it reconquereed all of North Africa and Italy and the southern tip of Spain, subsequently suffering mightily at the hands of the Avar Khanate and the first Arab Caliphate.

"Rome" was dead and gone by the 5th century, Byzantium endured until 1453.

SO -- different populations, cultures, languages, religions and timeframes sound like two Civs to me ...

2. "The Turks" -- the "9 Tribes" of western turkestan, including the Patzinak, Ghuzz, and Karakhanid -- were all on the scene north of the Caspian and Black seas -- as well as east of the Aral -- well before 1000 CE.

The "Seljuk Turks" were a clan of Ghuzz who moved southward and entered into the service of the Islamic Mahmud of Ghazni (~SE of the Caspian), eventually taking over by about 1040 and attacking various Arab caliphatesa and emirates, taking Baghdad in 1055. By 1070 they had beaten the Fatimids back to the shores of the Eastern Med and conquered much of Arabia; this spurt of conquest also brought them into direct contact with the Byzantines in eastern Anatolia (~modern Turkey).

Crushing the Byzantine army at Manzikert in 1071 gave them almost all of Anatolia, triggering the First Crusade -- waged indiscriminately against any Moslem, Arab or Turk -- taking Jerusalem in 1099.

"Turks" split into ruling the competing Ayyubid and Seljuk Sultanates, the former eventually morphing into the Mamluk Sultanate of Egypt in the 13th century, by which time damned enar everybody was having a wretched time with the Golden Horde et. al.

Things didn't stabilize until the 15th Century with the Ottomans in control in Turkey et. al., the Mamluks (not defeated BTW until Napoleon got around to them) wiuth various other barbarians at the eastern gates.

BTW, also by the 15th century, Islam encompassed all of North Africa south to the Sahel, and along the Indian Ocean coast to ~Madagascar; all of northern India, and well into Indonesia ...

Does this help clarify anything...

,

Oz

[Tattila the Hun]

Wonder why the Roman empire allways seems more modern than the middle aged ones?

[ilcattolico]

Originally posted by Ozymandias


*sigh*

1. The "Byzantine" Empire certainly stems from the final division of the Roman Empire into two sections, for administrative purposes in 395 CE (note that this follows about a century of chaos over trying to administer the Empire with two "co-emperors", Constantine "the Great" having begun as one such, seizing the throne of the west in 312 and becoming sole ruler in 324; he renamed "Byzantium" "Constantinople" in 320, initially intending it as the "Christian" capitol of the empire as opposed to the pagan one in Rome.

Often ignored, but of HUGE importance, was his decision to divert all Egyptian wheat from Rome to Byzantium in 328.

By this time, what most of think of as the "classic" Roman Empire was long gone. Citizens were stripped of their rights; peasants, in a foreshafowing of feudalism, were tied to the land; artisans were forced to supply the army at fixed rates.

Critical differences East and West:

(a) in considering the "fall" of the Roman empire, astonishingly few people comment on how vastly more urbanized the east was than the west -- and thereby wealthier, with access to more trading partners etc. (this obviously predates the sack of Rome by the Vandals in 455 -- the capitol had actually been removed to Ravenna in 404). In short, the different entities actually had very different economic infrastructures.

(b) the eastern empire was dominated by a different culture than the west -- Greek speaking and "minded"

(c) the same problems of scale which had made ruling the combined empire unwieldy in the first place was echoed in early Christianity, with separate authority going to western and eastern patriarchates -- and confounded by a plethora of "heresies", more plaguing in the west than east as (I would argue) there were more cultures/tribes/civs to convince and incorporate than in the east.

(d) the "Byzantines" utilized a different military structure than anything Caesar would have recognized.

-- all these factors (and some brilliant generalship) led to a "golden age" for Byzantium in the 6th century when it reconquereed all of North Africa and Italy and the southern tip of Spain, subsequently suffering mightily at the hands of the Avar Khanate and the first Arab Caliphate.

"Rome" was dead and gone by the 5th century, Byzantium endured until 1453.

SO -- different populations, cultures, languages, religions and timeframes sound like two Civs to me ...

Oz

Great post!

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by ilcattolico


Great post!

Mille grazie!

-- and, a thousand apologies, but that's about the limit of my Italian these days --

-Oz

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun
Wonder why the Roman empire allways seems more modern than the middle aged ones?

Current thinking -- based upon recent compilation and comparison of world-wide data -- suggests that a violent climatological event occured ca. 535 CE. (See David Keyes' "Catastrophe - An Investigation Into The Origins Of The Modern World" -- Arrow books, published in 2000). Think huge volcano or small asteroid.

So it wasn't just Rome that "seems" more modern -- ALL civilizations seem to have taken one giant step backward ... That the "decline" from the Imperium Romanun to the Dark Ages is encapsulated in Civ as a necessary ADVANCE to Feudalism is, I believe, the single most preposterous aspect of the game -- and that's saying a lot!

Oz

[Traelin]

Like I said on the "Not Constantinople" thread, here's a good article on the Byzantines/Romans.

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/MA/BYZ.HTM

I'm still debating in my head about whether or not they should be a separate Civ. Indeed, a good case could be made for the Byzantines. But it will be rather weird to have them sharing the same capital as the Ottomans.

[teturkhan]

Turks are not Arabs, their history begins in Central Asia, actually even further East around present day Mongolia. In my mod I placed the Turks in Central Asia.

Saying the Turks are just like Arabs or vice versa is just like saying the English are the same as Russians.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by teturkhan
Turks are not Arabs, their history begins in Central Asia, actually even further East around present day Mongolia. In my mod I placed the Turks in Central Asia.

Saying the Turks are just like Arabs or vice versa is just like saying the English are the same as Russians.

I wasn't suggesting they are the same. What I meant was that the Turks "evolved" from the Arabs, in that they inherited Islam from them and continued an Islamic dynasty. And the fact that the Arabs in Civ III are led by Abu Bakr makes it very hard to argue for both Civs being in, since he directly affected both Civs. I'm summarizing my posts, but hopefully you get the point.

[teturkhan]

Turks "evolved" from the Arabs

Turks in no way evolved from Arabs, this statement or choice of words is very misleading. Turks were taught Islam from the Arabs, along with Indonesians, Africans, Indians, can you say they all evolved from Arabs too?

Turkish people have their own language & their own unique culture. As a matter of fact, there are many Turkic Empires before Islam, the Khazars for example were Turks who converted to Judaism.

Your statement is too broad, and incorrect. You are merely speaking of the Middle East and in that capacity you are right but the problem is not all Turks are from the Middle East nor were all Turks Muslim.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by teturkhan


Turks in no way evolved from Arabs, this statement or choice of words is very misleading. Turks were taught Islam from the Arabs, along with Indonesians, Africans, Indians, can you say they all evolved from Arabs too?

Turkish people have their own language & their own unique culture. As a matter of fact, there are many Turkic Empires before Islam, the Khazars for example were Turks who converted to Judaism.

Your statement is too broad, and incorrect. You are merely speaking of the Middle East and in that capacity you are right but the problem is not all Turks are from the Middle East nor were all Turks Muslim.

The Seljuk Turks and later the Ottoman Turks became ingrained in what was once an Arab-dominated Civ and society. I'm actually not just speaking of the Middle East. The Moors, who were Arabs, expanded into Spain and Sicily. Not to mention N. Africa. These areas were also significant in Turkish history.