Not Constantinople

[Traelin]

OK I have to admit I didn't originally give the Byzantines enough credit. After reading the article and some other web info, I have to admit I was incorrect in my previous conclusions. The Byzantines should indeed be a separate Civ. However, how do you include them when they shared the same capital city with the same name as the Ottomans? Both had the capital of Constantinople. That would be way too weird, and historically inaccurate if the Ottomans have "Istanbul" as their capital. BTW, I don't have PTW yet. What is the capital city name for the Ottomans?

[teturkhan]

Istanbul was the name given to the city when the Turks conquered it in 1453. I know of no document showing the Turks called the city Constantinople, maybe Europeans kept calling it that but not the Turks.

Challenge anyone to prove otherwise.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by teturkhan
Istanbul was the name given to the city when the Turks conquered it in 1453. I know of no document showing the Turks called the city Constantinople, maybe Europeans kept calling it that but not the Turks.

Challenge anyone to prove otherwise.

I guess what it really comes down to is a "He said, she said" type of debate. That is, who called the city what, and when? We certainly know that the British, French, and the Byzantines called it Constantinople, at least until its official name change in 1930. And we do know that its official name change occurred in 1930. But then two questions arise:

1. Did the Turks refer to the city as Istanbul BEFORE the name change?

2. If they did, then which name should be associate with the city, the Turkish or the European name?

Interesting.

[Traelin]

OK here's some really interesting info on Istanbul/Byzantium/Constantinople.

Check out:

http://www.istanbullife.org/history_of_istanbul.htm

Quote: "Recent research has shown that the name 'Istanbul' was used if not during the Byzantine period, at least during the 11th century and that the Turks knew the city by this name. Istanbul has had other names at various times but none of them was used widely or for any great length of time. During the Turkish period the names 'Dersaadet' and 'Deraliye' were used (and these were adjectival more than anything else), and if official correspondence and on coins the Turkish transcription of 'Konstantinoupolis', 'Konstantiniye' was used, Although the use of the name 'Konstantiniye' was prohibited at one time during the Ottoman period by Sultan Mustafa III, its use continued, to be abandoned during the republican period."

This site still doesn't clear it up to me. It almost sounds like the Turks, when talking in the streets about their city, would refer to it as Istanbul. Yet their currency had Constantinople on it. It seems like they didn't even know what to call the city.

[teturkhan]

Finally, weakened by almost constant battle, the Ottoman Turks successfully conquered Constantinople in 1453. Renamed Istanbul

The Germans refer to Istanbul as 'Konstantinopel', the French and the British as 'Constantinople' and the Italians as 'Constantinopoli'. Europe resists the adoption of the name 'Istanbul'.

There is some debate as to the name, however many of the sources I have read, majority of them state that the city was renamed Istanbul after Mehmed II took it over in 1453.

I think it is a case where Europe is still in denial & guilt that the Turks took the city. Rather than accept the name change they insist on calling it Constantinople (which I think sounds better )

Just like they gave us the name Turkey - what a raw deal that was... ruined my childhood "how do you speak turkish?? Gobble gobble gobble???"

[monkspider]

Originally posted by teturkhan
Just like they gave us the name Turkey - what a raw deal that was... ruined my childhood "how do you speak turkish?? Gobble gobble gobble???"

On the subject of giving both Byzantines and Ottomans the same capital city, I see no real problems, unless both civs are playing on a world map.

It might be kind of weird to see the Byzantine capital of Constantinople being number one in the top five cities, and then seeing the Ottoman capital of Istanbul number three, but it's no big deal, IMHO.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by monkspider





On the subject of giving both Byzantines and Ottomans the same capital city, I see no real problems, unless both civs are playing on a world map.

It might be kind of weird to see the Byzantine capital of Constantinople being number one in the top five cities, and then seeing the Ottoman capital of Istanbul number three, but it's no big deal, IMHO.

As I mentioned above, I'm digging deep into a "best" starting date for a mod; at first I thought 1070 CE; now -- thanks to this thread -- I think an admixture of ca. 1050-1100 is defintely best. Re: this thread specifically, the Seljuk Turks conquered Baghdad in 1055; at that time, Baghdad and Constantinople were the two most populous cities in Europe and the Near East.

Each had population (sorry, but it's the range of the scale of the quickest source I could lay my hands on) in the 50,000 - 125,000 range.

It's interesting to note that NO cities in Christian, Western Europe at that time had a population in excess of 15,000!

Thanks,

Oz

[Traelin]

Originally posted by teturkhan




There is some debate as to the name, however many of the sources I have read, majority of them state that the city was renamed Istanbul after Mehmed II took it over in 1453.

I think it is a case where Europe is still in denial & guilt that the Turks took the city. Rather than accept the name change they insist on calling it Constantinople (which I think sounds better )

Just like they gave us the name Turkey - what a raw deal that was... ruined my childhood "how do you speak turkish?? Gobble gobble gobble???"

BAHAHA that's funny. Actually where did the name "Turk" come from, do you know? Just curious.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by Traelin

Actually where did the name "Turk" come from, do you know? Just curious.

-- From http://www.geocities.com/etymonline --

"Turk - M.E., from Fr. Turc, from M.L. Turcus, from Byzantine Gk. Tourkos, Pers. turk, a national name, of unknown origin. Said to mean "strength" in Turkish. "

Re: the bird:

"turkey - 1541, "guinea fowl" (numida meleagris), imported from Madacascar via Turkey, by Near East traders known as turkey merchants ... "

-- and, moving on to Anglo-American usage:

"The larger North American bird (meleagris gallopavo) was domesticated by the Aztecs, introduced to Spain by conquistadors (1523) and thence to wider Europe, by way of Africa and Turkey (Indian corn was originally turkey corn or turkey wheat in Eng. for the same reason). The word turkey was first applied to it in Eng. 1555 because it was identified with or treated as a species of the guinea fowl. The New World bird itself reputedly reached England by 1524 (when Henry VIII dined on it at court). Turkeys raised by the Pilgrims were probably stock brought from England."

Just like "pommes frites" becoming "French fries" ...

As Always,

Oz

[twilight]

Originally posted by Ozymandias

Each had population (sorry, but it's the range of the scale of the quickest source I could lay my hands on) in the 50,000 - 125,000 range.

It's interesting to note that NO cities in Christian, Western Europe at that time had a population in excess of 15,000!

Thanks,

Oz

I thought Byzanz had even more, I read about 300-400.000 but that could be their maxpopulation in their hight times. But that would be the 8. to the 11th (estimated).

To say one thing more: Byzanz was the wealthiest city in the western and eastern world (what about china?). They ownd whole masses of ALL christian reliquies like THE REALLY ONE crown of Jesus (dont know the term, the one with the spikes) and the very one cross and the were one letter of Jesus himself to a certain king I don't know and so on and so on. They were the very library of the old world, even the eastern people respected them for their traditions and strenght what does'nt means they did not try to destroy them. I think it's normal historic thinking that the third crusade in which Byzanz was plundered (shame on Dandolo's name!) was the greatest single desaster for the destruction of ancient knowledge, far more desastrous that the destruction of the Great Library in Alexandria and after the Byzantines never recover from that and after they fell to the Ottomans the way for them to the christian lands were free. Some problems of today are the result of the third crusade, so the Balkan Wars.

OZ? There was a westeuropean citiy in this time bigger than 15.000 ....

....my home city........ Cologne, Germany

Okay, never checked it out, but several professors on the cologne university said so. I think it was our High-middleage, so 11th to 13th Century. Not quite sure because not studying these aspects yet.

[metalhead]

Damn, I'm too late for my favorite debate! I'll just say, Oz, right on, it's a crime that America and Zululand were included, and this extremely important empire, one of only 2 empires (the other being the Arabs, who were also curiously left out of the original game) to exist for and dominate most of the Middle Ages, were left out. Of course, Byzantium is STILL left out, for some stupid reason. Fix this Firaxis :doitnow:

The argument that Europe on an Earth map is alreqdy too crowded is irrelevant. If this is your argument, you need to realize that most Civ players do not play on Earth maps, and could care less if the Byzantine Empire would crowd an Earth map.

[twilight]

I totally agree to that. But even if would be the case: YOu can play the real earthmap, that means you can't place half the european civs or on the other hand you play either a part of earth, Europe for example, or you play in a certain time and both are reason enough to put the Byzantines in.

Im also the opinion that Firaxis should let us choose what enemies we want to have without cutting the maximum ammount of civs. In other words: More Civs! Many more! Even little ones! Can't be so difficult. What would be so bad to let us choose up to 31 Civ from a total ammount of 40?

[Nakar Gabab]

Originally posted by Ozymandias
As I mentioned above, I'm digging deep into a "best" starting date for a mod; at first I thought 1070 CE; now -- thanks to this thread -- I think an admixture of ca. 1050-1100 is defintely best. Re: this thread specifically, the Seljuk Turks conquered Baghdad in 1055; at that time, Baghdad and Constantinople were the two most populous cities in Europe and the Near East.

Each had population (sorry, but it's the range of the scale of the quickest source I could lay my hands on) in the 50,000 - 125,000 range.

It's interesting to note that NO cities in Christian, Western Europe at that time had a population in excess of 15,000!

Thanks,

Oz

You sly bastard! You didn't say "any other cities!" Since, as we all (riiiiiiight) know, the Mesoamerican city-state of Teotihuacan may have had 75,000-150,000 people in the early 11th century...

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by twilight


I thought Byzanz had even more, I read about 300-400.000 but that could be their maxpopulation in their hight times. But that would be the 8. to the 11th (estimated).

OZ? There was a westeuropean citiy in this time bigger than 15.000 .... my home city........ Cologne, Germany

... I think it was our High-middleage, so 11th to 13th Century. Not quite sure because not studying these aspects yet.

Hi,

The "quick source" I used is Colin McEvedy's "The New Penguin Atlas Of Medieval" History (BTW there are 4 volumes -- Ancient, Medieval, Modern, and Recent -- and they are probably the best single source of Civ info for Civ gamers; each is ~100 wide pages long, and each contain political, economic/urban, and religious maps.)

Urban population in Western Christian Europe did begin to take off in the "High Middle Ages"; the map I was drawing from 1000 CE, the next in the "population" series dates from 1212 and shows some 15 or so cities in Western Christian Europe having crossed the 15,000 population threshhold.

Insofar as relative population goes, my "Atlas of World Population History" gives ALL of Europe, in 1000 CE, a population of 36 million (BTW, this represents a return to the level of 200 BCE, with 600 CE seeing a low of about 26 million). Meanwhile, "China Proper" (i.e., absent Inner Mongolia, Manchuria, Turkestan, Tibet and Taiwan) had, in 1000 CE, a population of some 66 million, rising rapidly to 115 million ~1200, then falling to new low of ~81 million in 1400, at which time Europe was experiencing its Black Plague dip to 60 million (from a high of 80 million ~1300, not reached again until 1500).

All the Best,

Oz

[Traelin]

Originally posted by metalhead
Damn, I'm too late for my favorite debate! I'll just say, Oz, right on, it's a crime that America and Zululand were included, and this extremely important empire, one of only 2 empires (the other being the Arabs, who were also curiously left out of the original game) to exist for and dominate most of the Middle Ages, were left out. Of course, Byzantium is STILL left out, for some stupid reason. Fix this Firaxis :doitnow:

The argument that Europe on an Earth map is alreqdy too crowded is irrelevant. If this is your argument, you need to realize that most Civ players do not play on Earth maps, and could care less if the Byzantine Empire would crowd an Earth map.

I disagree with your assessment of the Americans. The point is to include dominating Civs, and America has assuredly been one of them. Including all ancient Civs would be boring IMHO.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by Nakar Gabab


You sly bastard! You didn't say "any other cities!" Since, as we all (riiiiiiight) know, the Mesoamerican city-state of Teotihuacan may have had 75,000-150,000 people in the early 11th century...

Tsk! I WAS talking about just one part of the world ...

I don't have Meso-American city populations at hand -- but I do have global estimates for 1483 CE --

North America -- 1 million
Meso-America -- 4 million
South America -- 5 million
Europe -- 73 million
Africa (including Madagascar and Egypt) ~40 million
Anatolia / Arabia / Near East ~20 million
India -- 110 million
China -- 120 million (Note! -- this includes a much larger area than the "China Proper" cited in my last post!)
Japan -- 15 million
Korea -- 3 million
Southeast Asia ~8 million
Indonesia ~6 million

... Better?

-Oz

[twilight]

Originally posted by Traelin


I disagree with your assessment of the Americans. The point is to include dominating Civs, and America has assuredly been one of them. Including all ancient Civs would be boring IMHO.

Okay, and I am not interested at all in American Cultures because my personal interests are Europe and the eastern. Why not decide everyone?

Isn't this the real Civ? THe possibility to choose whatever you want? I have nothing against any Civ they throw in, but I miss the one or another.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by twilight
I totally agree to that. But even if would be the case: YOu can play the real earthmap, that means you can't place half the european civs...

Hmmm ... You know, I'm not certain about ALL the Euro-Civs at once, but -- especially given how the AI swaps advances -- a fairly crowded Europe might yield a nearly historical result. (Of course, I'm going with the common theory that all the competitiveness of the different Euro-Civs played a large part in their global ascendancy.)

This, again, is why I think it important to know when/why certain civs are included -- and how to balance the game-to-simulation equation.

For instance, in my "~1050-1100 CE" mod, at least for the alpha version, the following Civs will be in / around Europe:

England (good ol' 1066)
France
Germany
Scandinavia / Sweden (without berserkers, as the Vikings had chilled out by then)
Russia (Varangian-Slavic, with their capitol at Novgorod)
Venice (!)
Byzantines (capitol at Constantinople)
Turks (capitol at Baghdad)
Magyars (Hungarians)
Arabs
... and ...

"The Holy Roman Empire". Although the name is tongue-in-cheek (the real HRE having been, as the old joke goes, neither Holy, Roman, nor an Empire).

This "new" HRE will be a combined Hispano-Italian state with its capitol at Rome, for the following reasons --

1. Map space limitations.

2. The fervency of Spanish Catholicism will let them draw upon the the new "Vatican" Wonder.

3. The two were tightly allied and/or leaning towards the same side of various disputes from the Middle Ages to the present, including: Crusades, Philip's Empire, Counter-Reformation and religious wars, anti-Napoleon, the WW2 era, Nato and the EU.

BTW Venice will be one of a number of "non-player" Civs.

Yours Wandering A Tad OT Again,

Oz

[Hurin]

First, I admittedly didn't read all the replies. But, in my humble opinion, putting the Byzantines in another XP would be rather odd.

It ain't much, but I do have a Bachelor's degree in history (with emphasis on Roman history). . . so I have at least some idea of what I'm talking about. . .

The Byzantine Empire was indeed the Roman Empire after it "lost" its Western Half. They did indeed think of themselves as Romans. (Justinian's attempt to re-conquer Italy is a good example).

That is not to say that there wasn't distinct differences between the Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire that grew more pronounced as time wore on. However, these differences existed even while the Western Empire still stood.

The details escape me, but even while the Western Empire and the Eastern Empire were still ostensibly one empire, the Eastern half refused to send military aid to the western half during a particularly destructive "barbarian incursion". This goes to show that even while the Empire as a whole still stood, the Latin, Roma-centric, western half did feel estranged from their brothers and sisters in the more Greek-oriented/speaking Eastern half.

All that being said. . . Putting the Byzantine Empire in the game would be silly because it really is already represented by the Romans fully. Indeed, I usually build the Forbidden Palace in the East of my Empire and name it Constantinople.

H

[twilight]

Originally posted by Ozymandias
England (good ol' 1066)
Scandinavia / Sweden (without berserkers, as the Vikings had chilled out by then)
Oz

No. Because they are sitting in Norther France and "good ol' England" by then

Originally posted by Ozymandias
Russia (Varangian-Slavic, with their capitol at Novgorod)
Venice (!)
Oz

I don't know anything about Russia. Venice would be hard to simulate. But that is off topic. Anywhere in the forum is a discussion about trading and Navy. I think Venice would of no importance in a game. The game is limited in that way.

Originally posted by Ozymandias
Byzantines (capitol at Constantinople)
Turks (capitol at Baghdad)
Magyars (Hungarians)
Arabs
Oz

Arabs where? Egypt?
You forgot the Bulgarians. They will rise and shortly before their destruction (late 12th?) a really threat to the Byzantines. Big Power.

Originally posted by Ozymandias
... and ...

"The Holy Roman Empire". Although the name is tongue-in-cheek (the real HRE having been, as the old joke goes, neither Holy, Roman, nor an Empire).
Oz

HEYHEYHEY!

We were the protectors of the holy church. Sometimes that means we had to exchange/kill/torture some popes but nevertheless we were holy!

We had a Kaiser! Better than a king and so we had a real Empire. And those Kaiser were given the crown in Rome itself, so we were Roman.

We were the legal followers of the old roman Augusti. Not those byzantine scum!

Only to correct these things

Originally posted by Ozymandias
This "new" HRE will be a combined Hispano-Italian state with its capitol at Rome, for the following reasons --
Oz

And another reason. There were no such thing like a capital in Germany. The capital was there where the king was.

Do you have special graphics for Venice Ships?

[twilight]

Originally posted by Hurin
It ain't much, but I do have a Bachelor's degree in history (with emphasis on Roman history). . . so I have at least some idea of what I'm talking about. . .
H

When I counted right you are the 4th.

Originally posted by Hurin
The Byzantine Empire was indeed the Roman Empire after it "lost" its Western Half. They did indeed think of themselves as Romans. (Justinian's attempt to re-conquer Italy is a good example).
H

That's no good but sly example
Justinianus is called the last latin-byzantine Emperor. Shortly after that there were an Emperor Heriakleios and this one is called the first greek-byzantine Emperor. Then the real byzantine history begins and that Civ is we are talking about.

There was an ancient Byzanz and a medieval. For the ancient you are right, but the medieval is a complete other thing.

Originally posted by Hurin
All that being said. . . Putting the Byzantine Empire in the game would be silly because it really is already represented by the Romans fully. Indeed, I usually build the Forbidden Palace in the East of my Empire and name it Constantinople.
H

Wouldn't we all do

Read the replies. Anything is said. Byzanz is since the 8th? 7th? 9th? Crap, I should know this!

uhm... by this time a complete new civ in all aspects of culture.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by twilight

No. Because they are sitting in Norther France and "good ol' England" by then

Actually, I'm planning on giving them three cities to start: London, York, and ... Bayeux!

I think Venice would of no importance in a game. The game is limited in that way.

Part of my reworking the "middle ages" will be that pre-gunpowder seige warfare -- taking cities -- will be extremely difficult. Nearly all cities will be walled either (a) because they were (b) because the effect of being in a lagoon and well-militarized is well-enough represented that way, and (c) to represent the widespread infeudation of the times -- i.e., castles all over the place.

That having been said, Venice should serve to distract any power coming from the north to prevent too-easy a conquest of the Italian peninsula. It actually becomes a pivotal point for several spheres of influence -- rather a plum of a prize, actually and, and, as I say, not necessarily intended to by played by a human.

Arabs where? Egypt?

From Toledo in Spain, across the North African desert, to the margins of the Sahel (Timbuctoo and all) and to the borders of Abyssinia.

You forgot the Bulgarians. They will rise and shortly before their destruction (late 12th?) a really threat to the Byzantines. Big Power.

Sorry, the Byzantines axed the Bulgarians in 1018, entirely conquering their territory and, in the same breath, making vassals of the Serbs. The Bulgars DID re-emerge after the Byzantine disaster at Myriocephalum against the Seljuk Turks in 1176. They then hung around until conquered by the Ottomans in the late 14th century.

Do you have special graphics for Venice Ships?

I'm hoping to convince someone to work up both dromons and galleases ... wish me luck!


Best,

Oz

[twilight]

Originally posted by Ozymandias
Part of my reworking the "middle ages" will be that pre-gunpowder seige warfare -- taking cities -- will be extremely difficult. Nearly all cities will be walled either (a) because they were (b) because the effect of being in a lagoon and well-militarized is well-enough represented that way, and (c) to represent the widespread infeudation of the times -- i.e., castles all over the place.
Oz

Tried this too. The AI was never acting like I planned. Perhaps I gave up too early. Good luck.

Originally posted by Ozymandias
From Toledo in Spain, across the North African desert, to the margins of the Sahel (Timbuctoo and all) and to the borders of Abyssinia.
Oz

Wasn't the Reconquista finished by then. Early 10th?

Originally posted by Ozymandias
Sorry, the Byzantines axed the Bulgarians in 1018, entirely conquering their territory and, in the same breath, making vassals of the Serbs. The Bulgars DID re-emerge after the Byzantine disaster at Myriocephalum against the Seljuk Turks in 1176. They then hung around until conquered by the Ottomans in the late 14th century.
Oz

Uhm.... yes ... uhm .... (reading) .... Basileos II. yesyes I remember, he was the Slaughter of the Bulgarians. I thought that was another people... damn!

OKAY! You are right and I am not! Are you pleased now?

Crap. I always forget so much things.

Originally posted by Ozymandias
I'm hoping to convince someone to work up both dromons and galleases ... wish me luck!
Oz

If you succeed.... could you say something ....? PLEEEEEEEAAAAAAAASE...

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by twilight


Tried this too. The AI was never acting like I planned. Perhaps I gave up too early. Good luck.

Could you elaborate?

Wasn't the Reconquista finished by then. Early 10th?

Nope, the Emirate of Granada actually stubbornly held out to that otherwise famous/infamous year, 1492.

Crap. I always forget so much things.

Dr. Johnson observed that there are two types of information -- that which you know offhand, and that which you know where to find

If you succeed.... could you say something ....? PLEEEEEEEAAAAAAAASE...

ABSOLUTELY!!



-Oz

[twilight]

Originally posted by Ozymandias
Could you elaborate?

I fear not. I am the one with hundreds of good ideas, changing here and there a few rules and hoping. When it does not work I am sad but otherwise I would invest more and more time I have not.

Yes, whatever diferences all fans have, we all have to agree to one thing at least: Civ eats lots of time.

What I can say, the Ai do not use fortresses properly and is on deity level not able to defend itself. When anybody knows some traits to change or some other technics to let the ai do this, I would be glad to learn them. There are few ideas, set guards into a scenario without moving points. They will guard the fortresses until they died, but then the joke's over. Didn't tried to set ressources and colony (possible? Colony AND Fortress in same location?) to that place so it is more valuable or when it is on Venice's territory only ressources. What about fortress-units with big big defense?

Funny thing would be setting Forests or Jungles for swamp that can nobody enter. But I am sure that you know that all and it's completly senseless to explain. That's the problem. Civ III is so limited.

I had many many ideas for CivII and Test of Time, but no time to realize them. I wanted to make scenarios bigger and greater and cooler, but took too long. It's a pity cause i never saw if anyone would have liked my ideas. Now in CIVIII I am completly new and you can't edit the running game It takes longer and longer to experience and then you meet the blue screen of ... windows, because the game crashs. The new PTW-feature is okay but not enough.

Originally posted by Ozymandias
Nope, the Emirate of Granada actually stubbornly held out to that otherwise famous/infamous year, 1492.

Stubbornly? Hm, interesting word for that. Weren't they one of the few allied with El Cid?

Originally posted by Ozymandias
Dr. Johnson observed that there are two types of information -- that which you know offhand, and that which you know where to find

I know what you mean, that's true. But I am reading a Book of byzantinian history RIGHT NOW (weaping, crying, pity myself...)
Okay, it's my first (three Books, John Julius Norwich, german translation, '96) and it is very good, but also very alien. All those greek names, new peoples I never met before, Cities I never used to hear and so on. But there would'nt be a need of knowing it exactly. I am student of European history and the Byzantines are not part of it, they have their own students.

[Bad F-Line]

During this debate, how many of you have been humming the version of Istanbul (not Constantinople) by They Might Be Giants?