Page 2 of 3 First 12 3 Last

Oh please, spare me the chest thumping about how awesome the Turks were. I'm sure everyone has their pet faction they think should be able to rip everyone else to shreds. Complaining that 'your' faction isn't as strong in the game as it was historically is silly. Making it an exact replica of historical strengths and weaknesses would be terribly boring and we'd all just play Spain and England.

And your 600,000 number for the crusades is wildly overinflated. I don't know what useless propaganda you have been reading, but bear in mind many Crusader armies fell apart due to supply problems and infighting amongst the Crusaders or fighting with the Byzantines long before they even *got* to the Turks.

Uh, guess again. Name one culture or religion in the game you feel is represented 100% accurately.

Not even close. In fact, even if they were 600,000 strong they would be far from being one of the biggest armies in history. I think you may need to expand your scope a bit more: Medieval armies, by and large were *not* very large.

Mmmm also no. It's amazing just how disjointed and unorganized the crusades were. The Europeans were so far from being united on this that it isn't even funny. Crusades got sidetracked butchering Jews and fighting with the Byzantines, for crying out loud.


OK, I think we can see where you are coming from here. You have a personal vendetta against crusades. Fine. No problem. But you don't need to bring that here. This is a forum about a game loosely based on the medieval era, not an arena for debating the moral pros and cons of the crusades.

It's 'you' not 'u'. That's certainly a far more egregious mistake than leaving a hyphen out of 600,000 man army.

Anyone who thinks that striving for historical accuracy would be boring is simply wrong. There are far more intersting people and soldiers in history than CA represents.

However representing them historically would reflect all factions weaknesses as well as strengths. And at the time of the Crusades, the Saljuq's training of their ghulams had declined. The Saljuqs (calling them Turks is silly, there were many Turkic peoples in the world at the time), would not be an easy faction to play as, mainly due to both the Crusaders and the fact many of their own men often were mutinous.

Oh, and 600,000 men is an insanley large number... now way could they have fielded that many men.

@OP: If those 10 points are the worst historical inaccuracies you can find in this game, consider yourself lucky. If you would disagree with this, just read up a bit on the actual development of gunpowder weapons, of the efficiency of longbows vs crossbows, of archers vs. infantry etc. Or just stare at the Artillery Elephants for a few minutes.

This game is great fun, but it's no more realistic than your average Hollywood movie. The term "based on a true story" is really fitting.

Frankly, in a game where berber camel gunners use 19th century afghan rifles(as far as I can tell, anyway), elephants run around with artillery pieces on their backs, arquebusiers actually kill people, and it takes a year to move a distance that would in reality have taken weeks(to mention but a few flaws), is it really the naming of one factions' leader as "Sultan" rather than "Great Sultan" that tilts the whole into the realms of absurdity?

It's a cliché, but it's largely true: this is a game, not a simulator. I'm confident that fun-ness and cool-ness was always a priority ahead of historical accuracy.

That being said, I do think it's a good thing to bring up in-game inaccuracies. It gives all the ambitious modders something to do

The number may be exaggerated in Turkish sources,there probably was a problem or something.
Crusader armies' falling apart proves their unorganization. An army setting out for Jersualem got stuck even before reaching ISTANBUL.

And "u" thing...While even the Prime Minister of England and president of the US uses the word "gotta",there is nothing wrong with an innocent abbrevation.But when you say 600,000 man army,even my 6-year-old cousin (see the hyphens?)would laugh at that.

Hey no more discounts!!!Still for 15$!!!

Let's keep this friendly and respectful, everyone.

BTW, I am all in favour of debating history at the Citadel, but English lessons are off-topic.

We could keep debating about rifle inconsistencies, favourite factions and the degeneration of English grammar for as long as we like, but that'd be, quite frankly, stupid.

As econ pointed out, we're all quite free to debate history here, but we are not free to simply say "my favourite faction is better than yours - so there!", and nor are we free to criticise other members simply because we disagree with them.

We're looking for a nice, civilised debate here, not a mob ;)

To the topic at hand (and here i'm stopping myself from mentioning that there's no such word as 'unorganisation'), it's quite likely that the numbers of the crusading forces were exaggerated both to increase the glory felt through victory and reduce the shame of defeat.

As to the crusaders falling apart, you have to remember that we're talking about diverse armies consisting of both professional troops and volunteers (bear with me, my history is a bit shaky) from literally a dozen european kingdoms united only by a flaky goal and without a central leadership facing off against a united, professional army in the Turkish.

The only reason the crusades were as successful as they were was that the Muslims were disorganised - once they obtained a central leadership it all came crumbling down.

And correct me if i'm wrong, but i don't recall any cases of a crusade falling to pieces before reaching Constantinople - the (fourth?) one may have taken the city, but i don't know of any that failed to make it that far...

my 2c

How would the Turks know? Did they have access to the Crusader records, as if they were any? Did they take a headcount as they marched by? Come on, get serious. You just quoted 600,000, now you back off of that when challenged, but say that you have "reliable" Turkish sources. Which ones - the ones that told you 600,000 or the ones that you now say are lower!

Quite a few crusades failed to even get out of Europe. The Fourth Crusade in particular ended up sacking Constantinople after getting involved in local politics. Some got sidetracked killing Jews, pagans or rival Catholics.

No professional troops (in the modern sense) in Medieval times, but I suppose you can count the knights and mercenaries as 'professionals'. Professional armies require centralized taxation and are controlled directly by the crown. They are also uniformly equipped, organized and drilled. Feudal armies of the Middle Ages are much looser affairs; mismatched groupings of regional levies around a very tiny core of elite fighting men that may not even like each other, plus a huge assortment of camp followers and servants that do nothing but slow the march down and add to the number of mouths to feed. While a feudal army can look very impressive on account of its sheer size, its actual combat effectiveness is often rather poor when confronted with a more disciplined force. So, when you see suspiciously large troop strengths in any historical account, the esteemed and ancient chronicler may not only be inflating the figure, he may also be counting in all the noncombatants as well. Defeating 5,000 squabbling men-at-arms plus 595,000 cheerleaders and water-carriers doesn't sound quite as glamorous as defeating 600,000 glorious paragons of knightly virtue, does it?

To be fair, I don't think the Turks of Asia Minor were very united or professional at this time either. Their nucleus of fighting men was no greater than that available to the crusaders and their military organization was still basically feudal, with all its problems. The Ottoman army contained some professionals, but that comes much later and under completely different management, so to speak.

This is a game, it is not Peabody's Wayback Machine. If you're so concerned about historical accuracy, you would be pointing out the silliness of the "rebels" who are everywhere, and rightfully so. It's greatest of all inaccuracies. Who were all these provinces rebelling against? And why are they automatically at war with with every titled faction, all the time, with no exceptions for any reason? I doubt the people of Antwerp were really at war with the Turks, just as an example, but there they are, rebels at war with every titled faction. Or in fact a rebel captain who leaves his army outside of York, also at war with the Turks and everyone else. That's a bit more of an inaccuracy than not migrating the title of the Sultan to uber-Sultan. And there are many, many other inaccuracies elsewhere, both within each faction or the game as a whole. As I read the OP, while it progressed it sounded more like you are upset that the Turks are not the uberest of all ubers! with the mightiest soldiers! and grandest titles!, while using "inaccuracies" as a foil for your argument. Bow before Turkey or you are inaccurate!!! If you want a game in which Turkey wins every time, modify a few numbers make the titles suprememly super-uber, dress the animations of the Caliphs in jewels and gold, put the game on autopilot as you watch Turkish armies run roughshod over every foe with supreme ease and enjoy yourself! Fortunately CA makes the games easy to mod.

This is a game, and the game is about re-writing history (preferably with your own stamp of greatness of course!), not retelling it. To make the game fun and cool for everyone, not just fans of the janissaries, the factions are balanced with strengths and weaknesses-some with historical basis, some not. For all factions. Enjoy the game or don't as you see fit, however all the winning conditions for every faction involve completely ahistorical outcomes. Including the Turkish faction. I mean historically, once the Turks get to Vienna, should they not be obliterated? Hope that the inaccuracte winning condition doesn't keep you from winning the game, though. I had an absolute blast running my Jannisaries down the Rhine personally! That Viennese bulwark didn't stop us this time!

First it was 600,000, now it's just one of the "biggest armies" in history. How do you know? Medieval numbers are notoriously unreliable, and most armies of that age were relatively small, compared with either ancient or more modern armies. Please quantify the number for me and others so we can evaluate your claim.

Even if true, it wasn't from the Turks. Most of their losses were due to lack of supplies and water. In battle, they defeated the Turks at Nicaea, Dorylaeum and another battle later on. And they finally defeated them at Antioch. So the Turks were 0 and 4 vs the First Crusade.

I'm certain the Turks of the time wished that were so, but history says otherwise. After the First Crusade, the Byzantines took advantage of the weakness of the Turks and rolled back many of their previous gains such as Nicaea. Where most of Asia Minor had been held by the Turks previous to the Crusade, after the Crusade Alexius was able to retake most of coastal Asia Minor. Sorry to have to pull history on you :)

I don't think that is true. Please provide a reference. But even if that were true, it speaks more of the weakness of the Byzantines not the Crusaders, as the Byzants took possession of the city.

Since we aren't discussing the merits of Seljuk cavalry vs. Western knights, this is irrelevant.

A wise position to take given the historical mistakes you've made :)

Not in the way I used it.

Uh, don't give up your day job to teach either history OR English.

I want to say that we haven’t done any historical mistake. As we said before numbers are not important. 600,000 or 300,000 . This not our issue and we can never verify that. Here I am trying to say that Anatolia Seljuks were very successful against the Crusades despite they managed to take Jerusalem.(Seljuks were not beaten four times. They withdrew and tried guerilla warfare so Crusades suffered big damages. If you look at the second Crusade, you can see that even an Anatolia Seljuk Empire facing with many diffuculties could manage to beat Crusades. ) Nobody can deny that Crusades’ army was very big. If it was’nt so, they would not manage to pass all this way with so many wars. If you want to discuss about Crusades more , you can open a new thread about them. Please try to comment on other topics.

It was said that our culture was represented 100& accurately by Ulstan. I don’t agree with him. We have written this writing because our culture and army were showed wrongly. We are just like the Arabs and our soldiers are looking like an Arab soldier. If you are making a game with the name of “Medieval” you have to be careful about these details. Anatolia is being shown as a desert on main map. If we had made this game and showed England as a desert with palm trees, and titled England king as kaiser, there would be a storm of protests. That can be only a game but many people are playing it and they are learning wrong informations about us. For example, maybe many people will not learn the truth about the word” janissery”.

Ak07, please don’t give English lectures. There is no need for this...

I'm way off-topic with this first part, but:

I study English Language at my university and I asked my professor English Grammar about the usage of hyphens. She said that not even the Brits have a clear rule regarding hyphens. One grammar book can give rule A, another can give a rule B. The Brits don't mind hyphen mistakes, simply because they don't know what is right or what is wrong. Just wanted to say that, my language-sense forced me to type this.

Regarding the Crusades, Seljuks and other things:

We cannot trust ANY source completely. Throughout history, it is shown that people exagerate to make victories (or defeats) more impressive. Even the most respected historians (like Polybius) have changed their accounts one way or another. So, the only way to actually know if there was a 600.000 army is to go back in time and see for ourselves.

I do think 600.000 is a bit too much, medieval warfare was very low-scale and there simply wasn't any experience dealing with very large numbers. And everyone knows that there was a constant power-struggle for control, but what you'd exspect from all those nobles and princes? Just take a look at your political system, you see nothing but fighting there, I'm sure. Now, my opinion on the feudal system is just that: my opinion. It is based on writings from history books I have read and those in turn are translations and interpretations from original texts. And to top it all, they are "modern" interpretations, because we cannot think like a true medieval person. Like I said, you can't trust any source completely, so, I might be completely wrong regarding my opinion. But I'm disgressing ...

To sum up, lads (and lasses), please don't start debeating "heatedly" because of a number, since nobody can confirm it or deny it for 100%.

That's fortunate, since you won't be getting a job giving history lectures at any price.
The first crusade was aimed at the Holy Land, not the Turks. The Crusaders passed through Anatolia accompanied by Byzantine soldiers, and the Turkish garrison of Nicea surrendered to the Byzantines in order to avoid being captured by the Crusaders. The Byzantines accepted and forbade the Crusaders to enter, which didn't do much for catholic/orthodox relations.
The Crusaders left Anatolia, passed down into the Levant, and took Antioch and then Jerusalem, where they carried out a huge massacre of the population. The Crusade ended with the establishment of the Crusader States - Jerusalem, Edessa, Tripoli and Antioch. For the turks to have "recaptured Nicea" is hardly testament to their incomporable military strength, since it was only a side-show to the main purpose of the crusade.

P.S. I'm not disputing what you say about the Turks being poorly/wrongly portrayed in the game, that's a fair point.

The issue, Sadiqs of the org, is not about numbers and this that.
The orginal poster has raised issue with the manner of representation for the Turks.

edit: Sadiqs used affectionately, using the famous omnipotent Sadiq from the game.

People have different standards for what they can accept in terms of realism in a game, I am not sure there is much to be gained from debating issues like the derivation of the word janissary (it seems clear CA made a howler there, but it is also clear it won't not spoil most non-Turkish gamers enjoyment of the game).

How do historically minded people who play the Turks feel about how they play in the game?

For what it's worth, I just had my first battle with the Turks playing as English with them. They seemed pretty good and suitably characterful to me. It was around 1260 and I was trying to relieve a Aleppo with a scratch army that sadly lacked longbows or swords (the English mainstays). The Turks camped on a nice hill, with Akinjis (sp?) on the flanks. My knights and Turcomans struggled to best the Akinjis, who skirmished well exacting a terrible tole on my crusader knights. My spears predictably failed to push the Turkish spears off the hill (on VH battles), despite my now very depleted knights coming in support. The Turks had a few decent armoured lancer types who coped well with my knights. I lost horribly. It was great. It felt like a real medieval battle (to someone with only a beer and pretzels knowledge of the period). And indeed my entire struggle to hold onto my budding crusader kingdoms as England has felt wonderfully characterful and nicely challenging. Haven't even taken Jerusalem or met a Mongol/Timurid either.

I agree with Sinan. On the other hand i claim that Turkish generals' avatars are "disaster". Beyond being a muslim nation, the Turkish tribes moved into Asia Minor and Middle east from "Middle Asia (Far East)" since second half of 11th century. They had very different culture comparing arabic nations. (More likely to look like "Chinese" or "Mongol" by phsycal appearance) Those "dark and fearsome" men in this game can not be represented as Turks to my mind. Of course CA "may" have made mistake standing Catholic nations respectivly. But... They should have studied more on Turks...

P.S: Please dont recognize my thoughts as if baiting... No one desires flame bait in this community. However everyone ought to respect other peoples' ideas. I want to admire everybody in this community for sharing their ideas

people should check their history books - and then those of your neighbours - see how every nation tends to write its own history in its favour even when it not neccesarily wasnt - i think its normal (i dont blame anybody) and helps build national pride in the classroom but after a certain age people have to come to their senses and see it for what it is and not as facts.

i'm telling you all this because not so long ago i got the chance to compare the history taught in turkey with that taught in romania (my family came to Romania lnog time ago from istambul) and in that from grece... things are different totally POVish and tend to leave unconfortable things out. what i'm trying to say is: excercise reason and look at the context (this is a game not an academic learning tool or smth).

people are right if game factions reflected precisely the strength of actual historical factions (even with ballenced non-POV accounts) it would be boring - its still a game, use your imagination, mod, roleplay - enjoy.

[QUOTE=Inquirer]They had very different culture comparing arabic nations. (More likely to look like "Chinese" or "Mongol" by phsycal appearance) QUOTE]
In fact the Turks did not look like chinese or mongol peoples. The Turks who were living together with Mongols, had some mongoloid property. But the others did not. I can suggest you the book "National Culture" of Ibrahim Kafesoglu for this subject (If you know Turkish ). But it is true that tribes migrating to Anatolia had very different culture and they were very different from Arabs.

Sigh... ak07 please provide your evidence for insinuating that the English PM uses the wird "gotta".
Also, he was correct in saying "600,000 man army", if you were English and hence used English as your first language you would know that. Anyone can make a grammatical error, but you are not making an error. You are making a fool of yourself.
Obviously your English grammar is a bad as that chip you carry on your shoulder. Please do not try to teach native English people with good grammar how to bastardise the language. That is what you are trying to do.

I will give you lessons for free in order that you may justify that $15 (yes, it should be $15... not 15$ ) price tag.

Come on gents. Focus on the topic and quit the petty bickering.
This could be an interesting learning discussion.

I have no problem with the OP's intent - it is the dubious set of "facts" that he is using to justify his position that I am disputing. His claims are inaccurate at best, outlandish at worst.

Uh, what do you do when it isn't your own nations history that you're reading about? Can I trust what an American history books says about the Hundred Years War? Or the Greek-Persian Wars?

Eh?

It took EB -- a development team made out of volunteers without pay -- about one and a half to two years to make a historically accurate game. We're talking modders, not professionally educated, spending their free time to make stuff. Sure, they started with an existing foundation, but that one was so ill-suited we had to throw tons out.

Compare that to the (well-)paid, professional, 9-to-5 Creative Assembly developers. Surely they could pump out something historically accurate and fun to play (which EB is, infinitely more so than RTW) within the deadlines demanded in the software manufacturing market if a bunch of amateurs could do it?

Timur was a Turk, or at least a Turcoman -- he spoke a Turkic language and had a very shaky connection to Chinggis Khan indeed. Phrenology, I hope, isn't an argument to anybody with some measure of grey matter in between his shoulders.

P.S. What the man says is correct. Numbers are insignificant and of lesser value than the truth they serve. What that means? That you should stop number crunching and start listening to what he has to say, which is not to be disputed.

No bickering please. I am going to edit out any material I find unpleasant, unfriendly or off-topic from this point on.

I wasnt suggesting you should read from your neighbours - i'm sorry if i didnt express myself correctly - i just wanted to say that each nation writes their own history books and in the process some things geta spin.

- furthermore most things taken as historical fact are are due to more than one account and proof from different sources.

I'm sorry i still think u didnt get my point. Lets take the Hundred Years War - are both the french and the british accounts and attitude towards the events is identical in classroom books ? can you trust your state authority to give you the right information without proof or bias ?

i apologize as i realise this is somewhat offtopic also apologize if i'm not making much sense - i like this thread a lot somehow :) but i'm gonna stop writing in it so as to not seem inflamatory + i have a feeling that my english sux :)

noodles, i think i understand what you're trying to say, and i agree with it.

What's not coming through clearly is that you must use a diversity of sources in order to prove and/or trust anything.

In this case both sides of the arguement have been quoting from a single point of view that is, as always, slanted to their own side.

Unbiased history is very rare and that's why everything has to be taken in isolation.

it is strange that the mongols and timurits are also arabic...

it would be cool if the turks, mongols, timurits had the same kind of avatars for their generals, leaders etc.

And the leaders should be called khan or amir? and in the late game period Sultan.

btw. the first time i klicked on an aztec warrior he also had a arabic dialect :S
and in german version you see some english words like "ivory" instead of Elfenbein :)

First of all, It is just a game. Its not terribly historic because you can warp so much of history and end up with any one faction owning all of europe and anywhere else they care to fight. That isn't very realistic. That aside I don't care for the inconsistencies, there was only so much they could do about historic events because you don't know what the players are going to try and do. I keep in mind that Medieval 2 is just a game and a fun one. I love being able to build empires and with a few more tweaks M2TW could be great!

I just think this is taking things a little overboard for a game , but thats just me. Remember to have fun when getting into discussions likke this or things get nasty

You base yourself on an incorrect assumption.

What matters is the outset, what is handed to you at the beginning of each scenario -- that is to say Early, High and Late. Everything at that beginning should be just like it was in real life, as far as we can reconstruct it. With those tools given to you, the choice is yours what to do... follow history, or follow loftier ambitions?

You take it from there. You are thrust into the position of kings and emperors, caliphs and sultans, and you must decide as they did.

This is the essence of a game like this, and the masters of it are Paradox Entertainment. Their advantage in this over CA, however, is that a Paradox game does not contain any direct combat. In this, for sake of simplicity, the historical military units, their equipment, and their tactics should maintain strict adherence to history, just as the starting positions in each scenario do.

Only in this way can you truly presume to have made a game in which the player is thrust before the same crossroads that the great leaders of history were thrust before.

Plus, it's hella fun.

It's beginning to sound a little like Turkey vs The Rest Of The Civilised World.
One thing Bakma, since when has Cologne been a Turkish state?
Dammit, when can I start to be proud of being English? No one seems to let me.

Page 2 of 3 First 12 3 Last