History

[BalkanTourist]

Well, guys I wonder how many of you care really about the historical realism of the game. I do and it kind of bugs me to find many flaws. I understand that it is very hard to be completely accurate, but I get really ticked when things are manipulated the wrong way. I mean one thing is to omit something and another is to change it completely. You are probably wondering what I am talking about so far. I'll give you some examples.
For instance, I really don't understand why they decided to put the people of Novgorod as a fraction in Early. I know it is not playable, but still. If you want to add a fraction in that part of the map just so it is not empty, and if you are targeting the Russian market with the game, put Kievska Rus there. That state was really developing at the time and in fact was the first Russian state, far more powerful than any of its counterparts in the north. In fact had it not been for the GH, Kiev would probably still be the hinterland of a Russian nation to this day. It was only because of the GH that Moscow came to a rise up in the north forested areas away from the steppe and the Mongols. Novgorod was a later rival to Kiev before the Mongol invasion but they lacked the political strength of a unifying Russian state, although they were very powerful economically.
Another example is Byzantium. By 1204 the Latins(Crusaders) had sacked Constantinople and established a Latin empire around it connected with the other crusader states in the middle east. That event is of a great significance. It dealt a death blow to Byzantium, compared to the one Rome had when it fell. There were numerous Byzantine states and not just one - Epirus (around Thessaloniki, Greece), Nicea, Trebizond and others. All fighting for recapturing Contstantinope and claiming the unifying role and dominating the rest. In fact during that time (early 13 century) the most powerful state is the Bulgarian one. I know a lot of you will think I am biased, because I am Bulgarian, but this is not the case here, because history is based on facts and any of you who are willing to spend even 30 mins in research on the net will agree with me. Bulgarians fell to the Byzantines in late 11th century after having a successfully established a state in the 7th that was a major rival to Byzantium on the Balkans, claiming to be a unifier for the see of Slaves in the region. After a successful revolt in 1185 the Bulgarians reappeared and got to dominate the whole peninsula by 1230. They were still a factor up until 1396 when they fell to the Ottomans. In the game they are merely represented with one unit and that region, giving one star to your general-governor. I think they do deserve to be at least a non playable orthodox fraction in Late and High. No disrespect to the Polish, but their state came to be a player a bit later, only when the Ottomans had overrun The Balkans, reaching Moldavia and Crimea and the Hapsburg to the West, and after the withdrawal of the GH.
Another tick is the Turks. I don't even know why they are called Turks. Yes, they are of turkic origin, but it would be better to call them Seljuks. And with all my respect (I know I'll get some replies here) they were a not that important until late High and Late when they formed the Ottoman empire. I haven't played them in Late but that is when they really need to be a really powerful fraction if not the most powerful.
I think I got carried away a bit, hopefully I'll be forgiven http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif I understand that the game cannot be completely accurate and am still grateful for a great game with a great replay value. That's what mods are for after all. I am really interested in being a history researcher for one of you great Modders so, I hope I get noticed here. Also, I am new, so hi everybody http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif . You guys are doing a great job with this site, I meant all of you junior and senior members out there. Keep up the good work and dedication

[Malcolm Big Head]

Welcome. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

I think you will find many people that will agree that the game is not a good replacement for a history book. That is the great thing about being able to mod though. If it really aggravates you there is a good chance that you can change it.

[BalkanTourist]

Thanks That's why I am here hehe I am looking for a great teacher, but I'll even be satisfied helping someone else make a great mod that would be popular amongs all. I remember the good ole days when I was an active member of the Starcraft community and was pretty good with making maps.

[BalkanTourist]

I was thinking about an interesting fact that I wanted to share and didn't want to open a new topic. But it is interesting to know the difference in treating war prisoners in the East and the West. The Westerners valued their POWs as they were a significant source of income by almost always ransoming their captives. In fact many nobles supporting the king in a war would enter it expecting some king of profit. That's why in a battle everyone would be after the enemy's nobles as they were most likely to be ransomed if captured for a lot of gold. I guess it was like an enterpise http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif . Another thing is that knighthood code that had to do with nobles looking down on peasants and not willing to fight them. I think the reason why is, because there was no honor in winning over peasants and there was a slight chance of defeat which would be a big shame for any respected nobleman. And also there was no money in capturing peasants. Now another thing is if the peasants in an army were let to decide the fate of captured nobles. They'd kill them on the spot as thier hatred againts the nobility was great indeed. That's what happened in Agencourt were, the English king, I think Henry it was, let his longbowmen (of lesser origin, not nobles) to take care of the captured French. In the East to the contrary practice was to kill all prisoners in state wars, excluding raids by tribes like Cumans, Pechenegs i.e., who raided kingdoms for profit. Normally, if not killed a captured army would be at least crippled so that they can't come back next year fighting again. That's waht happened in 1014 when the Byzantine Emperor Basil II Bulgaroctonus blinded 15 000 captured Bulgarians, hence the name Basil the Killer of Bulgarians.

[Lord Ovaat]

IVAN, as MALCOLM (the one with the big head) has mentioned, there are a lot of inaccuracies in the game. Some may be oversights, but some are to facilitate game play. Modding is your answer. Problem with modding is if YOU make the mod, it ain't gonna be much fun to play. No surprises. You made it. There are some good mods out there that address some of the problems, but none will make all of us happy. The moders are limited as to what they can do because of many items being hard-coded, a maximum number of seas & provinces, etc. A PLAYABLE mod must be balanced. You'll have to make some sacrifices. Before starting your own, you might want to try Med Mod. It's pretty good, and they're about finished with the next version.

BTW, welcome http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[BalkanTourist]

Now I knew it would come to the unbalanced issue. Well like we all know, balancing power came significantly late 1814 I guess, the congress of Vienna. So to my oppinion it is okay to have many factions, some of them more powerful than others. After all that's how empires are born. A solution is to have only the stronger fractions playable and the rest as Minors. I agree that modders are limited, and that's why I was hoping to have another Medieval game. Like The Golden Horde expansion pack or maybe the Rise of the Ottomans or something like that. That'd give the creators to add some new unique units, fix some minor bugs and and some more depth in the game like coordinated assults for instance. Instead CA decided to move on and open a new chapter - Rome. I am not all that hyped about the game honestly. I believe Europe during 1000 - 1800 has a lot more to offer, but maybe it's just me...

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Czar Ivan Asen II @ Mar. 31 2004,08:16)]Thanks That's why I am here hehe I am looking for a great teacher, but I'll even be satisfied helping someone else make a great mod that would be popular amongs all. I remember the good ole days when I was an active member of the Starcraft community and was pretty good with making maps.
Wait for MedMOD 4.0 for historical realism, with Kievans, Seljuks (Turks, sorry) and others... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[yonderboy]

Overall, this is a superb post, but I must counter a few ideas/opinions:

Well like we all know, balancing power came significantly late 1814 I guess, the congress of Vienna. - I'm not 100% sure what you mean by this. The concept of a balance of powers was around for centuries before this. The lack of a unified Germany is by far the best example of this. England's attempts at coalitions versus Napoleon also explemifies this.

As for the factions, you're pretty overall correct. However, I'm biased cuz I love the Byzantine Empire, from an overall point of view. There's one really good reason to make Novgorod the main Russian faction is this. Consider the other rival factions near Novgorod: Sweden and Russia. If you incorporate Russia, you must take into account more of Asia, as the lands east of Moscow took a lot of the Russian's attention. They weren't a primarily European land until quite later. Same thing goes for most lands in the Russian steppe, such as Volga-Bulgaria. Then let us look at Sweden. To have the Danes AND Sweden would simply be not fair unless you incorporate more of Scandanavia.

Simply put it seems Novgorod is the best balance for the game. Maybe not the best choice, but the best choice when it comes to balance. With them you have a decent faction that, while separated from the Europeans, isn't focused on Asia or lands to the far north.

One final note on Byzantium: While they aren't anywhere near the height of their power (that would be a lot closer to 1000, another reason this game isn't the full 1000-1800 timespan which Czar Ivan Asen II craves, as do most of us), the final fall of Constantinople in 1453 gives a great ending point for the game. Going much longer and you'd incorporate the Spanish Inquisition at it's zenith, the increased persecution of the Jews, and the discovery of the New World. All of those aspects of a new Europe would need to be incorporated. On that note, this is probably why Portugal isn't a faction. Like Sweden and Russia, they're focused mostly on areas not on the M:TW map.

There need to be limits elsewhere, or else this would become EU2. Not saying that combining M:TW and EU2 wouldn't be awesome, but...

[yonderboy]

YAY

I'm Senior

wow, I'm all giggly inside

[BalkanTourist]

Well, asking for a 1000-1800 game is way too much, I agree. That's why it is expected to have atleast a Nap TW. I'd be surpised if there isn't.
Putting Kiev as the main Russian state is not only historically correct, but it would make the game more fun to my oppinion. Make a desent Novgorod as rebels, and a strong Volga-Bulgaria (muslim state)(LC and HA) and Khazar (a jewish state)(KC) would actually balance the Early game in the East. To be honest with you, I am not that familiar if Sweden had a noteworthy state during that Early 1100-1200. I'll have to research that. My main strength is East Catholic (Poland, Hungary), Orthodox, Turkish history. So I am not even sure if there should be a Swedish fraction. But even if there is, then I don't think it'd be that much harder for them to attack Novgorod, as they did later on in history, or Finland for that matter.
So Kiev should seek alliance with everyone in the west/south, maybe hitting Bulgaria (Bulgaria, Serbia and Wallachia) and focusing on expanding north as they did and east. It'd be nice to give them more time to prepare for the Mongol onslaught. They have meager chanses of success but they'd weaken the Mongols a bit.

[VikingHorde]

Im working on a mod were sweden, volgabulgars, cumans and more are ind the fray (30 faction mod). The Khazars were destroyd before early, but were then replaced by cumans. I have my cumans have avar nobles and shc. The volgabulgars have khazar royal cav and shc. It's more fun having pagans making raides from the start.
I desagre on the kiev thing. Novgorod were the stronges of the meny russian states. The russian kingdom was split up amoung the meny russian prinses, making a lot af small states. The king of rus had a lot of sons (more than 10 I think). If there should be a kiev in the game, then there should be both novgorod and kiev.

[BalkanTourist]

Ok, I guess you are right for the High and Late periods, but I'll have to disagree for Early. Kiev was then the strongest. Come a second thought, there shouldn't even be a Russian state in Late, it should be all GH in the south and some minors in the north (rebel armies with some Mongol units in them as well)(Moscow being the strongest) to indicate the loose grasp of the Horde and the emmergence of the Moscow Russia. Cumans were great mercenaries and were used by Byz as well as the Bulgarians and the Hungarians. They were excelent troops, but very unreliable as they switched sides in a blink of an eye. Also Kiev had troubles with them and with the Pechenegs. Also if there should be only one region where Avar noblemen can be trained then it should be Wallachia as that's where the Avar Khaganate was (also in Carpathia and Hungaria) but those guys where gone much earlier, so were the Khazars but I guess whoever owns that region should be able to make them in Early. Also Alans should be available to all in Georgia/Khazar.
VikingHorde, you, since from Denmark, should probably know more about the history of that region, how strong was the Swedish state and should it be a fraction in a mod?

[VikingHorde]

In early, sweden was not very strong and the internal strukture was a lot like HRE, electing a king. In high they became stronger and more like ofter kingdoms. Denmark was the strongest of the scandinavian contrys, but that change after when the calmar union fell. In late period, the swedish made attacks on russia, however unsuccesfully. The states of novgorod did not fall to the horde, but was a vasal to them, having to pay tribute. The russians then got stronger and kicked the horde out. The Pechenegs are the same peoble as cumans and had a big kingsdom. The russians had big problems with them. Thats why kiev lost it importnans and capital was moved to vlademir.
The cumans and volgabulgars can train cav in all provinses.
The swedish are in the game to make things harder for the danes http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[yonderboy]

See... the Russian state isn't a good faction to cover the entire game period. As for Kiev, you're right, they were a strong presence. However, from my personal experience, that would detract from Byz's potential. And in 1080, Byz still had TONS of potential. Including a lot of factions like the Bulg and Kiev and Swed is a great idea, HOWEVER... you'd hafta tone down the faction-returning aspect of the game, which would, naturally, change the whole flavor of the game. Right now, the Russian area is kind of no-man's-land, and just an area for the Mongols to eventually invade from. It would suck to have a bunch of factions next to the Mongols.

As for the Russian muslims, again, this is less euro-centric than the rest of the game. Hence, it's not included. It would REALLY imbalance the game to have Volga-Bulg run over early on just to let the Almo's run a jihad from Spain thru Europe. I'd venture a guess that they considered it quite a bit, and that aspect prevented it. Again... sacrifices to make the game Euro-centeric.

N:TW will PROBABLY be done someday. But I see R:TW as the next logical step. N:TW will need first a vastly-improved diplomatic aspect, as well as static powers. The tactical battles will also be MUCH larger than what we have so far. But it seems perfectly natural that N:TW will exist in the coming years.

Let's hope so

[BalkanTourist]

Thanks for the info on Sweden. Novgorod and the other Russian principalities where vasals to the GH, but you might as well say they were under the yoke. The Mongols could come and go as they pleased and they were the ones appointing the rulers of the different principalities. The Cumans and Pechenegs are nomads of turkic origin. They never had kingdoms or kings, simply because they were just tribes, one of the many that came from the stepes and they got assimilated and disappeared. Many took positions in Byz, Bulgaria, even one of Bulgaria's kings was of Cuman origin. And no, they weren't the same, cause the pechenegs came wearlier 900-1000, then came the Cumans 1100-1200. But Kiev has been a notable state since at least the 900s, when in 967 the Great Kniaz Sviatoslav came down as an ally of the Byz to raze the Bulgarian capital of Preslav and take land and much looth and slaves. The center shifted for awhile to Vladimir due to internal strugles in Kiev, but it was still considered the state of Kievska Rus. And like I said Novgorod came later and it aslo was part of that state only later to claim to be the center of that state and rival Kiev. Volga-Bulgaria shouldn't be playable, but should exist as a strong minor fraction, so that it is harder to concuer. They were though pretty powerful in that region till the Mongols came and it fell as all others in that region.

[yonderboy]

Here's a bit I dug up just now about Sweden. Good stuff:

- 800-1050 AD: Vikings goes on crusades mostly in Russia and Eastroman empire.
- the end of 1300-century: The island of Gotland becomes part of Sweden.
- ca 1300-1809: Finland belongs to Sweden.
- 1320: Skåne, Northhalland and Blekinge is conquered from Denmark.
- ca 1357: Denmark conqueres the previous danish areas and Gotland.
- 1389-1521: The Kalmarunion (Danish-norwegian-swedish union which Sweden broke out several times).

And from World History 1200-1300 AD (http://www.multied.com/dates/1200ad.html) we have:

- 1240 AD Nevsky Defeats Swedes- In 1240, Alexander Nevsky a Russian prince, defeated the Swedes, near St. Petersburg. The Swedes had invaded at the request of Pope Gregory IX, who wanted to punish the Orthodox Russians for helping the Finns avoid conversion to Latin Catholicism.

- 1293 AD Finland Conquered by Sweden- Eric IX (Jedvardsson) Christian King of Sweden, defeated the Finns. He then forced them to convert to Christianity.

As we see, Sweden was more than a bit player. Naturally, they reached their peak after the period of M:TW, w/ Gustav Adolphus in the Thirty Years' War, etc... But they're are at the perimeter of the gaming area, and hence just a minor faction, there mostly to annoy and taunt the Danes until they get conquered.

[BalkanTourist]

Thanks,yonderboy
Don't you just love to sink in the vast realm of history only to come out with some good treasures coming from deep? I agree with you and so Sweden should be a minor one/two land faction (Sweden and later Finland). And I say again, I don't agree a game should be balanced when it comes to land and even units. That's histroy, nothing was fair. Besides, don't you like to change the course of history and have the Polish or other minor faction rule them all provinces against all odds?? It is a lot harder, but also a lot more fun. Also I am not that much of an expert, but can't the way all factions act be programed, so we have agressive, defensive and so on factions. You'll have to be a lot better with diplomacy to be able to get more land, just the way it was - if Danes want Scandinavia - make HRE an ally, and kill the Swedes/Norse. The partition of Byz in High, can be compensated with the many little kingdoms producing better troops (quality, valor, morale). So there are ways to make it interesting. And also I am against modding the abilities of the units in game and even making new units. I think with a roster that deep a modder should do just fine just assigning certain units to be unique to certain fractions or at least better. I might be a bit puritanistic, but I want a closer to history game with as few corrections as possible. Impossible?

[yonderboy]

Make it quick, cuz I gotta go.

YES, I love digging into history and learning even more Always rewarding Basically, here's what I think. To balance gameplay (cuz hey, it IS a game, no?), they chose 1 Scandanavian faction. It had to be the Danes, or else the HRE would just march right up. As it is, Denmark and HRE simply realize it would be crazy to attack each other. As for Russian, they chose Novgorod. I can only speculate as to why Nov and not Kiev or Volga-Bul or anyone else. Maybe they were chosen because they were less decimated by the invading Mongols. I simply don't know.

Cya. Btw, this is a superb thread. Luvin it

[BalkanTourist]

I agree. It is a game and it has to have compromises and sacrifices. That historically correct mod which is a dream of mine, should be only for hard core fans, not for everybody, because it will not be fair to all factions. So to be fair and to give everyone a chance the creators modded history. Danes was the right choice for that part of the map. Volga-Bulgaria was never a Russian state - they were part of Great Bulgaria which was destroyed in 630 by the invading Khazars and occupied Crimea/Khazar/Georgia regions on the map. Then the remaining Bulgars split, part went to present day Bulgaria, part to present day Macedonia, part to present day Italy, another stayed were overran/assimilated by the Khazar Khaganate that later accepted Judeism and the fifth part went to where the rivers Volga and Kama meet. As the others they formed a Bulgarian state that existed till the Mongols arrived and accepted Islam even before the Mongols/Tatars. A lot of the Tatars also accepted Islam. Kiev was the correct choice for a Russian fraction, but like others said in this thread, that would prevent Byzantium's growth and would make it easier for the Turks/Seljuks to beat the big guy The Byz Empire. And that problem became, cause they for some reason decided to make the Seljuks a major faction in Early and even High. While their presence in Asia Minor is not to be underestimated, they became a big player in mid High period and later where the biggest to my oppinion. So to give them credit for what they did after that, or to target the market in Turkey, or to use the ignorance of a lot of Westerners who know little about the East even nowadays, they gave them a bigger role that early on. Also Byzantium never had land aspirations in ANY of stepe territories north of the Black Sea, besides the Crimea.

[VikingHorde]

I have tryed my mod to see haw the cumans and volgabulgars reacted and they were overrun by the horde, so ther presens have not ruind the hordes conquest. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Im making all the factions playable, but some factions will be a little weaker. The swedes will bee a little weaker than the danes in early, but in high and late thay get more ballanced. In my game, there will allso be the serbs and armenians (lesser armenians). This will of couse make it harder on the byz, but allso more fun. The scots will allso make it harder for the english, so it will be a new ballgame. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-smile.gif
Oh, i forgot.
The lithuanians, nice pagan empire. They were huge.

[Cebei]

Quote[/b] ]Another tick is the Turks. I don't even know why they are called Turks. Yes, they are of turkic origin, but it would be better to call them Seljuks. And with all my respect (I know I'll get some replies here) they were a not that important until late High and Late when they formed the Ottoman empire. I haven't played them in Late but that is when they really need to be a really powerful fraction if not the most powerful.


Ahhhh Gods have heard my pleas http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif At last someone who CAN distinguish Ottomans, Seljuks and Turks Someone who knows the difference between what is Seljuk, what is Ottoman and what is Turk.. I got this huge relief and joy right now http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ht_jumping.gif I was so hopeless that even I was using Ottoman-Seljuk-Turk as synonymous.

You should have been present in this forum a week before man While I was trying to compile Seljuk-Ottoman historical info for the most historicall accurate totalwar mod: Medmod 4.0 http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif Unfortunately I've already wrapped it up and sent it.. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif

[Eastside Character]

Welcome Czar Ivan Asen II http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

Just wait for Medmod 4.0, its going to be pretty historically accurate and quite complex...

Regards,
EC

[yonderboy]

Hey now... I'm one of them too. I just write it off as a sacrifice made for the game. As for my mentioning of Bulgars as Russian, I was referring to geography. I've learned enough to realize that they're not the same group of ppl as the Greater Russian ppl.

IF I have it right, it's this: Russians are amongst the slavs, and Bulgars are in the same group as Magyars (?). Something along these lines. I was fascinated when I learned that Finns are in the same group of ppl.

Anywayz. That mod sounds intensely awesome. I just think M:TW had to make some sacrifices for the overall playability of the game. Again... I cite EU2 as a great example of a game that bends in favor of the aspect of history.

Anywayz... still an awesome mod.

[BalkanTourist]

Thanks for the welcome Eastside Character Cebei, I just found this site recently, I although I have been playing the game since fall of 2002 (It seems like a lot of time passed since then) Although, I have been playing it that long, I consider myself a novice, since my comp is of an ancient type (Compaq Presario - Celeron processor, 7GB memory, generic video card). That is my biggest pain - the battles load, but you see everything in white, besides the sky and the water sometimes, all units are white squares and have to click ot each to find out which is which. Sometimes I'd charge my Ghulams head on a bunch of swiss piceman (ouch) by mistake, cause I am trying to be fast. Sometimes the computer gets really slow with the large battle. So trust me it is not fun I've given up, so I just play the campaign map, which is like licking a lolipop thru the wrap You'd think that at least there wouldn't be any secrets for me on the campaign map, but it is still a mystery for me what's the point of a high valour diplomat. I have had factions refusing to ally with me eventhough I had a five star diplomat. And a five star assasin die trying to kill a 0 star general. Anyways, I thank The Org for existing, and now that I am here I offer my humble services

Ahhhh Gods have heard my pleas At last someone who CAN distinguish Ottomans, Seljuks and Turks Someone who knows the difference between what is Seljuk, what is Ottoman and what is Turk.. I got this huge relief and joy right now I was so hopeless that even I was using Ottoman-Seljuk-Turk as synonymous.

Yeah, I get annoyed with people calling the Seljuks Turks. I guess they do so, because the game creators were historically handicaped, or because of the trendy ignorance of the common western folk (no offence, I know there are some great historians out there). Let me try to clear this. Calling the Seljuks Turks is not completely wrong, but not politically correct either. Calling someone a Turk has turned to have a different meaning. It's like calling the English now Anglo-Saxons. Yes the Seljuks were of Turkic origin. But so were a whole bunch of other tribes - Cumans, Pechenegs, Huns (earlier). A common mistake is believing that they were all the same, apart from similar language and probably close place of origin. Another common mistake is believing that the Bulgars were of Turkic origin as well. Although they were a steppe tribe and came from the east like all turkic tribes, their origin is similar to the Alans, and the people of present day Ingushetia, Dagestan, Chechnia, Gergia, i.e. of Iranian origin. So that answers your question, yonderboy. Also most European language have common origin, but Finnish, Hungarian and Estonian ( all three related) have a completely different origin, and if you listen to them talk, you'd have no clue what's going on except for when they use borrowed words like computer or machine....
Finally everyone's been telling me wait for that supa-dupa mod. Any ideas when it's gonna come out and how to get it?

[Don Corleone]

I'm not trying to stir any controversy or anything, but (and don't get me wrong, I play as the Italians) isn't it unfair to start Early with a unified Italy? I thought Italy was all contentious city states and that Venice & Genoa were actually in a pretty nasty trade war through late High. I mean wasn't Marco Polo ( a Venetian) captured by the Genoans on his way back from the far East and imprisoned for a while, just for being from Venice. Could anyone shed any light on this, or do I have my dates wrong again.

[VikingHorde]

The Venice & Genoa were not best friends, don't know about Marco Polo thoug..

[yonderboy]

Ah... many re:'s

First of all, I'm going to assume that by trendy ignorance of the common western folk you mean ignorant of anything besides Western European History. Then again, a lot of Americans (I'm one) are just plain ignorant of that too (I'm not one of those though). The conversation about the Bulgars/Finns/etc. was something like 6 months ago, so I'm very hazy when it comes to remembering anythingi specific.

From what you're saying, Turk is a huge umbrella-type term, just like Anglo is. As for language, I'm not quite getting your point honestly. Language is one of the first cultural aspects to get lost with migrating peoples.

Anywayz, I think the developers, instead of being historically handicapped, simply chose the name Turk. The Turk home province is Rum, right smack-dab in the middle of Asia Minor. Obviously, modern-day Turkey. I'm not quite sure why they chose Turks instead of something else, but I really, really don't think it was out of ignorance. Their choice of Almohads is a prime example of this. You must remember that the game spans many, many centuries. The developers needed a name for a faction to be somewhat representative of the entire time span. I'm not sure Seljuk would definitely be more representative. I'm certainly not putting my foot down and saying that Turks is obviously the best choice either. I just think they applied Turk as a group of people, instead of an overall category of many related races of people.

Somewhat similar to the thinking of the Italian faction. I'm certain, again, that this is a gameplay-demanded compromise. I look at the as those derned Italian cities. While Venice and Genoa were most definitely rivals, they nearly always saw that the others' survival was in their best interest. Sorry to make this short, but that's really the basic sum of it to me. When dealing w/ Venice or Genoa, you were forced to take the other into account as well.

[discovery1]

Quote[/b] (Don Corleone @ April 01 2004,16:26)]I'm not trying to stir any controversy or anything, but (and don't get me wrong, I play as the Italians) isn't it unfair to start Early with a unified Italy? I thought Italy was all contentious city states and that Venice & Genoa were actually in a pretty nasty trade war through late High. I mean wasn't Marco Polo ( a Venetian) captured by the Genoans on his way back from the far East and imprisoned for a while, just for being from Venice. Could anyone shed any light on this, or do I have my dates wrong again.
Yes, Italy was a bunch of city states.Howver, in the name of balancing the game they were united, otherwise they would likely be overrun.

[BalkanTourist]

I agree Italy was never unified. But like we all agree, the creators modded history to make the game more balanced.
I didn't mean to offend any of the westerners here. I am glad that you, yonderboy, are not one of the ignorant ones (huh, Bulgaria?Which part of South America is that?). That makes you cooler than the rest.
About the Turks. Turkey is the modern name of a country that was the core of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans were a branch of the Seljuks. The Seljuks were one of the many peoples that invaded and settled Asia Minor. The process has been going on since the times the Arabs tried to concuer the greatest city at that time Constantinople (The Second Rome). The rise of the Arabs and their concuest of the holy Christian lands,and the Middle East, and the great migration of peoples from East to West (starting around the time of the Huns and ending with the Mongol/Tatar invasion, stirred up Asia Minor and from the battle of Manzikert and the defeat of the Emperor, the Byzantines practically lost that land, eventhough it would be another 3 centuries before it was completely lost and the Byzantines will only have a tiny strip of Asia around Constantinople. The coming of more and newer tribes and peoples kept pushing the previous settlers further and further to the west. The whole region was not unified but small holdings existed everywhere with their own rulers. One of them was Osman who ruled over one small border I am not sure if I should call it kingdom. It is amazing how history works sometimes. But that little holding turned out to be a great empire concuering many a land and peoples.
Byzantium is a younger brother to Rome, or even a child of Rome. Many things reminded of that great Roman empire that existed a thousand years earlier. One major thing in common with the Romans was Byzantine diplomacy (They should get spies, assasins, diplomats with at least 2* valor at start http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif ). The most basic principle in Roman, Byzantine and even nowadays diplomacy is Divide and Concuer. Another one is There are no permanent allies, only permanent interests. So it is Byzantium to blame for it's own extinction and the misery of many other peoples. Eventhough the Latins were kicked out of Constantinople and the divided Byzantine was reunited, things weren't the same any more. The Bulgarians enjoyed a period of domination of the peninsula (Czar Ivan Asen II claimed to be emperor of Bulgarians and Greeks). Then the Serbs rose to be quite dominant with Stephen Dushan's period. On top of everything the Mongols came by this region on their way back from Hungary and Poland, which made the situation even worse for the region. And so the Byzantines, Serbs and Bulgarians all fought for domination of the peninsula, none of them however being strong enough to claim it all. The Byzantines true to their divide and concuer policy switched alliances often fighting the Serbs alongside Bulgarians and Bulgarians alongside Serbs. In occasion the Serbs and Bulgarians fought Byzantium jointly. To be able to hold the other two, Byzantium often hired the savage border people in Asia minor (mostly Seljuks) as mercenaries to fight in the European part of the empire. Eventually the Seljuks grew stronger and stronger and by mid fourteenth century claimed almost all of Asia Minor and started raiding the richer Balkan provinces. Worried that through it sistematic policy of hiring the Seljuks and ignoring the threat they possesed, the Emperor sent a letter to the Bulgarian Czar Ivan Alexander asking to unite against the common threat. Knowing from personal experience and from the many centuries of Bulgarian - Byzantine relationship never to trust the Emperor, Ivan Asen refused, thinking that the Osmans were the Emperor's problem. Well, we all now what happened next. And eventhough Byzantium was attacked first, it fell after all the rest of the Balkans were concuered. Serbia fell in 1393 and the last of the divided Bulgarian kingdoms at that time fell in 1396. Constantinople fell in 1453. The Polish and Hungarian kings tried to crusade against the Osmans/Ottomans in 1402 but got badly defeated because the Venetians refused to block the Black Sea and so the Ottomans transfered 80,000 army fresh from Asia Minor to the Bulgarian port of Varna, where the battle took place. Many knights died including the Polish king Wladislaw.
Hope y'all enjoyed the lesson http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-smile.gif
Make a lonng story short: the Ottomans were Seljuk branch, and the Seljuks were a people of turkic origin like the Huns, the Cumans, the Tatars (not Mongols). Nowadays Turkic states are Turkey, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan? Am I missing any?
Cheers

[yonderboy]

God, I am cool, aren't I?

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

Anywayz, great thread. Overall, I find it decently balanced, altho I'd love to play a more accurate mod

[oblivious maximus]

Quote[/b] (Eastside Character @ Mar. 31 2004,11:58)]Just wait for Medmod 4.0, its going to be pretty historically accurate and quite complex...
Im really enjoying 3.14. The word is 4.0 is going to be more accurate? Is this the next, any news on release?


Good post Ivan, the more accurate the better. It is just the way to go. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Axeknight]

Wow, this thread is really interesting http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

I'm a bit ignorant of eastern European history, so this is all new to me. When people think of the Middle Ages, they always think of knights in shining armour, damsels in distress, etc. The truth is so much more interesting. I know quite a bit about western European history (I specialise in the 20th century and the Peninsular War), but very little of eastern Europe.

Keep the history coming, people, I'm fascinated

[oblivious maximus]

Ivan, i just sent you a pm. Im not sure if it went through.
Let me know if it did. Otherwise, not a biggie.

[Lord Ovaat]

OBLIVIOUS, I received an EM from Wes this morning that indicated a couple of weeks yet. Yeah, I'm anxious, but they're really researching stuff. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[nick_maxell]

Quote[/b] (Don Corleone @ April 01 2004,16:26)]I'm not trying to stir any controversy or anything, but (and don't get me wrong, I play as the Italians) isn't it unfair to start Early with a unified Italy? I thought Italy was all contentious city states and that Venice & Genoa were actually in a pretty nasty trade war through late High. I mean wasn't Marco Polo ( a Venetian) captured by the Genoans on his way back from the far East and imprisoned for a while, just for being from Venice. Could anyone shed any light on this, or do I have my dates wrong again.
You got it right in the gametime and quite some time after Italy was a collection of citystates, each quite powerfull on its own but some nominal under HRE rule (Milan for example). Italy wasn t unified until well into the 18's. The most powerfull players in the time of the game were Venice (I wonder why the Hungarian hold Croatia - Venice had a firm grip of most of the territory with some independent citystates mixed in), Genua, Florence and Siena with some other minor states like Lucca and Pisa and many more - all with complex relationships and alliances. Would be a nice mod idea you could even have aGH event a couple of times when the HRE tries to establish his rule and the pope doing his own thing. Ive seen the fortifications along the Sienese - Papal state border - they were not only against the HRE ;)

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

nick

[nick_maxell]

Quote[/b] (yonderboy @ Mar. 31 2004,13:59)]IF I have it right, it's this: Russians are amongst the slavs, and Bulgars are in the same group as Magyars (?). Something along these lines. I was fascinated when I learned that Finns are in the same group of ppl.
You might be interested getting a hand on Feb 27 th issue of Science - there is a whole special about languages and their relationship which some very interesting maps - try at a local college or at a library which has an subscription www.sciencemag.org

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

nick

[BalkanTourist]

Quote[/b] (oblivious maximus @ April 05 2004,10:49)]Ivan, i just sent you a pm. Im not sure if it went through.
Let me know if it did. Otherwise, not a biggie.
No I didn't get your private message. And thanks, I do love history so this is what I am good at. You should also check my post at the Monastery in a thread about Russia.
Yes, it is true that history is subjective. But there are facts that cannot be desputed, and any unbiased person can get his/her conclusions. And you can tell generally if someone is biased. I try not to be, and that's why I always double and triple check info from both sides of the barricade and from independant sources.

[meravelha]

Ahh for the Seljuk Sultans of Rum

The term Rum itself is Turkish (actually a Persian loan-word) for Rome, just as the City of Erz-e-Rum is Persian for the Land of the Romans.

The term Rumi (Roman) is still commonly used to describe the people of the Anatolian plateau.

ie, Turks http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif