Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 70

Thread: About The TURKS

  1. #1

    Default About The TURKS

    We have written this article to criticize and correct the mistakes about the Turks in MTW2. We hope it will be taken into consideration by the producers of the game.

    1-The Turks in the game are just like the Arabs. In these years the Seljuk Turks were very different in culture from the Arabs of Mesopotamia. The Seljuks were still living the steppe culture mostly. But in the game even from the beginning the Turkish units such as spies, assassins, captains and even family members are wearing Arabic costumes. The wives of family members are wearing “buqra” which is very wrong as the Turkish women preferred kershief.

    2-The Turks are beginning with a few regions not including Baghdad. In 1055 Baghdad and caliph were saved from Buveyhis by the great Seljuk sultan Tugrul. The Turks should have Baghdad in the game too.

    3- Military units are very weak. As a consequence, the Seljuks who resisted many Crusades are much weaker than in fact. During the First Crusade, six hundred thousand Crusade soldiers entering Anatolia left as a force of only forty thousand. This proves the strength of The Seljuk Empire .Also, the Ottomans’ military units are weak in the game. Even around the time of foundation of the Ottoman Empire, no wars were lost except the one against Timurlane. During that war, which was the biggest battle in the Medieval times, Timurlane lost forty thousand of his soldiers despite the fact that he had never lost more than two thousand up to then. This is another point proving Turks’ strength(Timurlane was also a Turk).

    4- In the game one of the most irritating mistakes is that Anatolia is just like a desert and the building in Anatolia resemble those in Arab peninsula. The mosques like other buildings in Anatolia were very different from the ones of Egypt and Arabia. In Anatolia mosques were much like the Orthodox churches. Trees in Anatolia such as palms are another disturbing point. Palm trees are not found anywhere other than Mediterranean coasts such as Antalya and Mersin coasts in Turkey. But in the game they are everywhere.

    5- Turkish faction leaders are called “Sultan” all the time. But from 1350, they were using the title “Padisah” meaning “Sultan of sultans”. This is a very common mistake made by the Europeans.

    6- Cavalry units were stronger than they’re in the game. For example, Kapiqulus were elite soldiers which no factions had. They were compelled to protect the Padisah (ottoman word for “sultan”)But in MTW 2, they are the weakest of heavy cavalry units.

    7- Another thing is that our favourite Turkish soldiers-Akinjis are not the way they should be. Akinjis consisted of only Turkish worriers who were living close to borders of the country and protecting them. A Rum (Greek) who converted Islam or an Arab did not have the right to be an individual of that unit. They were one of the most important units of Turkish army. They attacking as far as mid-Europe causing fear. In Balkan countries many officials were charged with the mission of warning an oncoming riot by the Akinjis. These officials were only made redundant in the 20th century. But these important soldiers are very weak and they are only told to be Muslims in the game.

    8-There aren’t any powers of the Caliph. While the Pope calls for a Crusade every now and then, Jihads are called by a regular Imam, which is one of the most important mistakes in the game.

    9-The worst mistake in the game, according to us, is that the word “Jenissary” is claimed to be of Greek origin. Actually, “Yeni (Jeni)” means “new” and “Çeri (Sary)” means “soldier” in Turkish. We cannot understand how this kind of a mistake is made.

    10-“Sipahis” in the west regions of the Empire is told to be Christian. But in Turkish armies, Christians were never recruited. Instead, “Cizye” tax was to be paid. This tax was one of the most important sources of income of the state.

    As a result, we wouldn’t like to consider these mistakes made deliberately. We hope that the will be corrected immediately. Maybe a patch can be released in order to correct them.

    Raziel 17 & The Ak07
    In August on Friday, before sun rised to the Manzkiert, grey wolves army assaulted. “ya Allah Bismillah Allahu-akbar”
    In the front Turcoman commander with sword, before him fifty thousand Turks of Oghuz, they remind an avalanche comes from Altai.

  2. #2
    Earl Of Warwick/Wannabe Tuareg Member beauchamp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Minneapolis, Minnesota/Kaltenbach, Tiroll
    Posts
    319

    Default Re: About The TURKS

    Hm, I agree with you Raziel. I made a comment earlier about the Tuaregs, (a nomadic Berber tribe in the sahara) not being strong enough (and the Mamluks for that matter), and am baffaled at the absence of an Abbasid Caliph at Baghdad. Im also playing a game as the Turks right now and am realising their weaknesses of Horse archers and with any real infantry or "attacking cavalry". Seems to me that the west was really given the benifet in terms of troop strength and the east forgotten in general.

    But, I actually havent played as the Turks in the late era, so I havent gotten a chance to play as the Janiserries (sorry for the transliteration, arne't they called Yeni Cheri?) so hopefully they fully represent the Turks/Ottomans.


    Ya Misr!

  3. #3

    Default Re: About The TURKS

    600,000 crusaders during the first crusade…? The number is quite obscene for the time, don't you think? I'd like your source on that number if possible.
    'Hannibal had been the victor at Cannae, and as if the Romans had good cause to boast that you have only strength enough for one blow, and that like a bee that has left its sting you are now inert and powerless.'

  4. #4
    Yorkist Senior Member NagatsukaShumi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    York, England
    Posts
    2,246

    Default Re: About The TURKS

    I can't see CA releasing a patch to correct the historical inaccuracies you've cited I am afraid to tell you, same would go for most games companies. Your best bet is to wait for realism mods (Medieval Auctoriso which I lead, Medieval Total Realism, Medieval Fidelity and so on).
    RIP TosaInu
    Ja Mata

  5. #5

    Default Re: About The TURKS

    Quote Originally Posted by NagatsukaShumi
    I can't see CA releasing a patch to correct the historical inaccuracies you've cited I am afraid to tell you, same would go for most games companies. Your best bet is to wait for realism mods (Medieval Auctoriso which I lead, Medieval Total Realism, Medieval Fidelity and so on).
    There's also a mod to make the voice acting more realistic or period-proper.

    I'd pop them off an email about the “Padisah” problem.
    Current Campaigns:

  6. #6

    Default Re: About The TURKS

    Playing as Turks right now, and I am loving it as much as I did in MTW1, Turks were my fav faction back then too. To respond to Raziel:

    1. Don't all three islamic factions in the game have the same avatars for their generals/agents? It'd be great if they had more variety but pretty sure CA is not going to change this.

    2. Yea, Turks should have Baghdad. But then I guess England should start with York, the scots with Inverness, etc..... CA probably made some traditional provinces rebel to balance the game.

    3. If I recall correctly the Turks beat the Crusaders down with missile superiority and better mobility; they did not prove superior in melee combat. If this is true then the game is not far off. I beat down every single crusade with horse archers. By the way, the army of the first crusade that was wiped out by Turks in Anatolia was mostly peasants/pilgrims, so not surprised alot of them died. There were enough actual soldiers to make it a good fight still, but anytime your army is mostly peasants the kill count is going to be inflated. The Turks had a harder time of it at Antioch, where they lost despite holding numerical superiority over a starving foe (the crusaders at that time had no cavalry because they ate all their horses lol). The losses for Timur at the Battle of Ankara range from 15,000 to 40,000, I guess its just a matter of which country your sources came from. And also, Timur was not a Turk, he was an ethnic Mongol living in traditional turkic region conquered by Mongols (proven by scientific analysis of Timur's skull in Samarkand), but pretty sure a lot of his troops were turkic.

    4. Don't all the islamic faction buildings look the same, and ditto with all catholic factions? My computer already lags playing this game, I don't want it to lag anymore lol.

    5. It'd be nice if they added in "Padisah" soundbit to replace "sultan" after 1350 but I don't think CA will do it.

    6. I don't think kapikulus are THAT weak, they did pretty well in my campaign against high-age knights and such.

    7. don't fully understand.

    8. I agree that having a caliph will make playing islamic factions more involved. But one of the reasons I play Turks is so I don't have to listen to a pope/caliph!

    9. You are correcto

    10. If I recall correctly, sipahis were recruited using the devshirmeh system (same as janissaries) early on, and only later were they strictly recruited from ethnic Turks. Under the devshirmeh system they would have recruited orphan boys from conquered Christian lands? Not sure about that, but pretty sure Janissaries recruited Christian boys, but I believe they were made to convert to Islam before becoming a full member of janissaries.

    Besides, I think there's more blatant inaccuracies than having palm trees in Anatolia and Arab-looking agent pictures, for example, how the hell do you mount a fairly large cannon on the back of an elephant?!?!? Next thing you know they'll be giving frenchies breadsticks that shoot out cheese

  7. #7
    Member Member Skott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    434

    Default Re: About The TURKS

    Historical accuracy was never one of CA's strong points.

  8. #8

    Default Re: About The TURKS

    If you look at the european factions, almost every one of them has some sort of unique traits/buildings/units/etc that aren't accurately reflected / not reflected at all in-game, so while you're right in most of your analysis of the turks, I'm afraid one could write up a similar article on every faction and request that it be made more unique. I'm sure CA have their limitations ;)

    One thing I don't agree on is the analysis of turkish troops. I think they're quite close to being balanced relative to other factions. The thing with quoting historic events is that there are a lot of variables and you can very easily spin the details in your favor. I personally think the balance with european heavy infantry+cavalry superiority and eastern horse archer superiority is pretty good.

  9. #9

    Default Re: About The TURKS

    heh :) played the turks and let me tell u the mobility and versatility of the HA really wipes the floor with most europeean powers - also turks have the Janissary Heavy Infantry which is also one of the best units in the Game..

    i think people expect too much historical accuracy from this (And other games) - try realism mods for closer depictions of the times

    - what i think the game does is provide a valueble incentive for people to learn more about their past - CAs games and the modding community had the superb effect of getting me to read a lot of History Books over the years and games that stimulate this kind of curiosity should be held to high esteem (doesnt mean CA should leave so many bugs in tho )

  10. #10

    Default Re: About The TURKS

    History is not a selling point.

    History is not a selling point.

    History is not a selling point.

    Say it a couple more times. Got it? Good. Wait, no? Say it once more. There we go. Now you're ready to accept that no game will ever be 100% historically accurate, because the development would take a decade, it would cost too much, and it wouldn't make any money.

  11. #11
    Confiscator of Swords Member dopp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    702

    Default Re: About The TURKS

    Muslim heavy cavalry is already much improved from MTW, where they didn't even have barded horses and got shot up rather easily. Once you get a decent general and some experience for them, they will easily beat Catholic knights.

    600,000 crusaders is definitely inaccurate. All military accounts exaggerate troop strengths and casualties, even today. Ever notice how in England vs France military history, France consistently loses 30% more men even when they win the battle? Medieval accounts are defintely unreliable unless proven otherwise. History is written by the victors, and accounts from different sides will disagree greatly. The Turks claim to have defeated 600,000 Crusaders, but the French claim to have slaughtered 200,000 'Moors' in Spain, the English to have beaten 200,000 French knights at Agincourt, the Greeks (Macedonians really) to have annihilated 2 million Persians at Issus, and so on. It's ridiculous, to say the least.

    600,000 fighting men in Medieval Europe? That is more men than the entire Imperial Roman army under Augustus, auxuiliaries included. Logistically, they could have won simply by eating up the whole Middle East. A more reasonable estimate would be 100,000, including a large percentage of camp followers and other non-combatants. Opposing them were 20,000-30,000 Turkish fighting men at most. Feudal armies could be very large, but only a tiny fraction of them would actually be hardened soldiers (knights, men-at-arms, mercenaries like longbowmen). The rest just scream and run around a lot when the fighting men are defeated.

  12. #12
    Dux Nova Scotia Member lars573's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Halifax NewScotland Canada
    Posts
    4,114

    Default Re: About The TURKS

    Quote Originally Posted by Raziel17
    5- Turkish faction leaders are called “Sultan” all the time. But from 1350, they were using the title “Padisah” meaning “Sultan of sultans”. This is a very common mistake made by the Europeans.
    Many mistakes here. Padishah doesn't mean Sultan of Sultans. It means Great Sultan. It's Persian/Farci, broken down meaning Padi (great) shah (king). Sultan of Sultans would be Shahanshah (King of Kings). The title used by the Sassanid Perisans for their rulers. Also the ruler titles are set in stone. You either have to have Sultan all the way through of Great Sultan all the way through.
    If you havin' skyrim problems I feel bad for you son.. I dodged 99 arrows but my knee took one.

    VENI, VIDI, NATES CALCE CONCIDI

    I came, I saw, I kicked ass

  13. #13
    Member Member Ar7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Reval, Livonia
    Posts
    299

    Default Re: About The TURKS

    From my experience with Total War games CA always divides the factions into certain groups that have a similar base (animations, units, graphics etc) it makes it easier to develop the game. In M2TW the factions were divided by religion, so we have muslims, catholics and orthodox nations, the last actually include some catholic one. They have their unique aspects, but are still largely similar. Due to this fact each nation has a lot of inaccuracies and while they are certainly important, like it was pointed out in the original post, they are still too numerous to correct when one looks at all the factions.

    PS. The sentance below was very amusing

    Quote Originally Posted by dopp
    Feudal armies could be very large, but only a tiny fraction of them would actually be hardened soldiers (knights, men-at-arms, mercenaries like longbowmen). The rest just scream and run around a lot when the fighting men are defeated.

  14. #14

    Default Re: About The TURKS

    way offtopic: Dont forget to mention a large contingent of professional feudal coconut clappers for dismounted knights in need of self esteem.

  15. #15

    Default Re: About The TURKS

    Quote Originally Posted by IPoseTheQuestionYouReturnTheAnswer
    History is not a selling point.

    History is not a selling point.

    History is not a selling point.

    Say it a couple more times. Got it? Good. Wait, no? Say it once more. There we go. Now you're ready to accept that no game will ever be 100% historically accurate, because the development would take a decade, it would cost too much, and it wouldn't make any money.
    Quote Originally Posted by Skott
    Historical accuracy was never one of CA's strong points.
    Of course history is a major selling point, kind of hard to argue that about a game titled "Medieval Total War"

  16. #16

    Default Re: About The TURKS

    I don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but you can tell that some of the voice acting and piecing together for the Turks was rushed a bit. When you actually decide to fight a battle on the battle map, the army that you have selected says something. In some cases, the little one liners are too long for the "zoom in" which takes you to the battlemap, so you can't hear the whole thing.
    If I wanted to be [jerked] around and have my intelligence insulted, I'd go back to church.
    -Bill Maher

  17. #17
    Member Member Nasreddin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Bavaria, Germany
    Posts
    1

    Default Re: About The TURKS

    Hi, folks.

    I just finished my Turkish campaign and I do not consider the Turks to be a weak faction. For sure the game is historically inaccurate. But I think its bearable.

    For the Tursk themselves. I think they are the strongest Muslim faction in the game. At the beginning you have two good options with Sipahi-all-cav-Armies or an Army based on Ottoman Infantry with additional cav and some spears.

    Later in the game you can rely on your Janissaries. An Army based on Janissary Musketmen supported by some spears and cav has proved to be deadly against all european factions in my campaign. It's really funny watching Heavy Knights being gunned down, while they try to rush into your lines.

    What I am more sad about is that the Arab factions are really weak. I both tried the Moors and the Egyptians but stopped the game frustrated because of their meagre units.

  18. #18

    Default Re: About The TURKS

    Quote Originally Posted by Marquis of Roland
    And also, Timur was not a Turk, he was an ethnic Mongol living in traditional turkic region conquered by Mongols (proven by scientific analysis of Timur's skull in Samarkand), but pretty sure a lot of his troops were turkic.
    Timur's skull is not important for me. There is a quotation of his poem:

    We are the ruler of turan (a name that is used to express all of the places where the Turks live), ,Emir-i Turkistan" "We are those who descend from Turkish ancestors." "We are the most ancient of all nations and the most improtant- leader of The Turks"

    Quote Originally Posted by Marquis of Roland
    don't fully understand.
    In the game Akinjis are mercenaries and too weak. But they were not mercenaries they were a unit of Turkish army. If you want I can tell about them much.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marquis of Roland
    If I recall correctly, sipahis were recruited to use the devshirmeh system (same as janissaries) early on, and only later were they strictly recruited from ethnic Turks. Under the devshirmeh system they would have recruited orphan boys from conquered Christian lands? Not sure about that, but pretty sure Janissaries recruited Christian boys, but I believe they were made to convert to Islam before becoming a full member of janissaries.
    Sipahis were consisted of only the Muslims. I mean a Christian could not be a sipahi. But Christians who later accepted Islam could. In the game some sipahis are said to have been christian. This is wrong. First Sipahis were recruited with the devsirmeh system but by the time of Mehmed 2 their ranks were only chosen from among the ethnic Turks who owned land within imperial borders.
    Every time The Turks make a decision,it's bound to happen -one way or another!!!

  19. #19

    Default Re: About The TURKS

    Quote Originally Posted by the_ak07
    Sipahis were consisted of only the Muslims. I mean a Christian could not be a sipahi. But Christians who later accepted Islam could. In the game some sipahis are said to have been christian. This is wrong. First Sipahis were recruited with the devsirmeh system but by the time of Mehmed 2 their ranks were only chosen from among the ethnic Turks who owned land within imperial borders.
    Yea thats what I was trying to say hehehe.

    Tell me more about akinjis, they sound historically interesting.

  20. #20
    Guardian of the Fleet Senior Member Shahed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Leading the formation!
    Posts
    7,918

    Default Re: About The TURKS

    If I may throw in a take here, wanted to put in a word.

    Akincis (or is it akuncu, plural ?) were advance raiding parties used to disrupt the enemy on the borders of the empire. They would be sent in ahead of main armies led by the Sultan, Padishah, Grand Vizier or other leader...etc.. almost always, and very often they would also be acting alone under the authority of their own corps commanders.

    Often these men, of Turk ethnicity, would be part of the same extended families or tribes (for want of a better word), led by a senior "family" member who would be the corps commander.

    They would be responsible for interdicting supply lines, in enemy territory, pillaging the land, and generally causing chaos. They were light cavalrymen, but obviously well armed/equipped, and well skilled to operate in enemy territory and live off the enemy, as they had no supply lines of their own. One of their tasks was also flank and forward reconnaisance for main armies, and otherwise reconnaisance and intelligence gathering. They would be deployed in corps strength to harass and demoralise the enemy armies through constant strikes. This would make the task a lot easier for the main Seljuk or Ottoman armies when they engaged, later.

    In the game I believe the unit concept is somewhat flawed in this perspective.

    I use Turkomans as akinci.
    Last edited by Shahed; 12-29-2006 at 20:04.
    If you remember me from M:TW days add me on Steam, do mention your org name.

    http://www.steamcommunity.com/id/__shak

  21. #21

    Default Re: About The TURKS

    Quote Originally Posted by lars573
    Many mistakes here. Padishah doesn't mean Sultan of Sultans. It means Great Sultan. It's Persian/Farci, broken down meaning Padi (great) shah (king). Sultan of Sultans would be Shahanshah (King of Kings). The title used by the Sassanid Perisans for their rulers.
    Sorry for the explanation of the word "padisah". It is my mistake.
    Quote Originally Posted by lars573
    Also the ruler titles are set in stone. You either have to have Sultan all the way through of Great Sultan all the way through.
    (Sultan-Seljuks, Padisah-Ottomans) If CA can’t reflect the Turks of seperate states as they do the Italians, they have to pay attention to these differences. They cannot reflect a nations culture wrongly.
    In August on Friday, before sun rised to the Manzkiert, grey wolves army assaulted. “ya Allah Bismillah Allahu-akbar”
    In the front Turcoman commander with sword, before him fifty thousand Turks of Oghuz, they remind an avalanche comes from Altai.

  22. #22
    Guardian of the Fleet Senior Member Shahed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Leading the formation!
    Posts
    7,918

    Default Re: About The TURKS

    If I understand correctly, there are 3 main cultures in the game. Catholic, Othodox, and Middle Eastern.

    Everything that falls under Middle Eastern is Arab-isied, inluding the Mongols. That's the way the game is made. A lot of the nations could be seperate cultures in game as in reality. To save that (huge amount of) work I think they have chosen to Arabise the Eastern nations.

    You are (obviously) correct that Turks are not Arabs.

    I would like to add the Mongols are not Arabs either, nor the Timurids.
    They have also fallen under the same Arab umbrella culture in M2:TW. They have changed to voices to something similar to Shogun: Mongol Invasion voices, at least something different, which the Turks don't have. They sound very Arabic.

    Actually to many people as long as you're Eastern you're Arab. If you're Persian, Turk, Afghan, Pakistani, Indonesian etc.. they don't know the difference. Of course this is completely false, to say that everyone is Arab (lol).
    Last edited by Shahed; 12-29-2006 at 20:25.
    If you remember me from M:TW days add me on Steam, do mention your org name.

    http://www.steamcommunity.com/id/__shak

  23. #23
    Scruffy Looking Nerf Herder Member Steppe Merc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    7,907

    Default Re: About The TURKS

    I agree 100%, the Turks are horribley misrepresented. I know a bit about the Turks, and as such I found I could not play as them because they were shown so porely.

    There are no ghulams, and the very fact that they combine the Saljuqs and the Ottomans is ludicrous.

    "But if you should fall you fall alone,
    If you should stand then who's to guide you?
    If I knew the way I would take you home."
    Grateful Dead, "Ripple"

  24. #24
    Guardian of the Fleet Senior Member Shahed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Leading the formation!
    Posts
    7,918

    Default Re: About The TURKS

    It is much better now than MTW part 1. I Have to give credit where it's due.
    Last edited by Shahed; 12-29-2006 at 20:20.
    If you remember me from M:TW days add me on Steam, do mention your org name.

    http://www.steamcommunity.com/id/__shak

  25. #25

    Default Re: About The TURKS

    Quote Originally Posted by Marquis of Roland
    Tell me more about akinjis, they sound historically interesting.
    There were Akinjis in nearly all Turk states. They orginazed raids as far as Arab peninsula at the time of Gokturks (means sky Turks); mid-Byzantum at time of the Seljuks and mid-Europe at the time of the Ottomans. It was decided beforehand which akinji unit was supposed to loot exactly which place. Then they suddenly took action and turn back with lots of prisoners and loot even before their enemy could make out what was going on. When they were in enough numbers, they wouldn’t even hesitate to go for a pitched battle. They even could conquer cities by themselves. For example Mihaloglu Ali Pasha, conquered the city of Varadin as well as looting it with his 18 000 akinjis. This outsanding commander crossed the Tuna for exactly for 330 times.(source : Ottoman history records) They acted as a part of the army when Padisah was on a campaign. A very useful unit… Unfortunately they are very weak and weird in the game(plus mercenaries).
    In August on Friday, before sun rised to the Manzkiert, grey wolves army assaulted. “ya Allah Bismillah Allahu-akbar”
    In the front Turcoman commander with sword, before him fifty thousand Turks of Oghuz, they remind an avalanche comes from Altai.

  26. #26

    Default Re: About The TURKS

    Quote Originally Posted by Raziel17
    3- Military units are very weak. As a consequence, the Seljuks who resisted many Crusades are much weaker than in fact. During the First Crusade, six hundred thousand Crusade soldiers entering Anatolia left as a force of only forty thousand.
    Thats baloney. There were no 600,000 man armies in the middle ages - there was no logistic capability to support that many troops in one army on campaign. The First Crusade kicked butt, Turk and Arab. First they took the Seljuk capital, which was Nicea, then they took Antioch. How'd they do that if the Seljuks were so overwhelmingly powerful? They took their capital, dammit!

  27. #27
    Member Member Daevyll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    277

    Default Re: About The TURKS

    600.000 is indeed nonsense. It is the number mentioned by Fulcher of Chartres and Albert of Aix, but can be discounted as a gross exxageration for dramatic effect.

    Runciman (still considered the authorative work on the crusades by many historians) estimates the total strength of the first crusade at about 4500 cavalry and 30.000 infantry when assembled near Constantinople.
    This is a number that can be properly supported by primary and secondary sources.

  28. #28

    Default Re: About The TURKS

    Quote Originally Posted by Grifman
    Thats baloney. There were no 600,000 man armies in the middle ages - there was no logistic capability to support that many troops in one army on campaign. The First Crusade kicked butt, Turk and Arab. First they took the Seljuk capital, which was Nicea, then they took Antioch. How'd they do that if the Seljuks were so overwhelmingly powerful? They took their capital, dammit!
    Hey watch it Grifman. There may not have been as many as 600,000 men but there were on of the biggest armies in history.And the army lost at least%80 of its soldiers. The first Crusade was a baloney too as the others. They took Nicea but guess what then? The Seljuks captured it immediately afterwards. The Seljuks had the second most powerful units of that era(after german cavalry knights). Knowing your mistake is the first step to correct it-your bein powerless!

    by the way u wrote "600,000 man" yeah the plural form of "man" is "man" again.
    I can give English lectures for 25$ per hour!!!
    Every time The Turks make a decision,it's bound to happen -one way or another!!!

  29. #29

    Default Re: About The TURKS

    lol, you wouldn't happen to have any reliable sources to support all these facts would you?

    By the way, "600,000 man army" (or 600,000-man, not too sure on the grammar) is the correct way of stating it. I do English lectures for $20/hr

  30. #30

    Default Re: About The TURKS

    Quote Originally Posted by Spark
    lol, you wouldn't happen to have any reliable sources to support all these facts would you?

    By the way, "600,000 man army" (or 600,000-man, not too sure on the grammar) is the correct way of stating it. I do English lectures for $20/hr
    I do have reliable Turkish sources.It's normal that the numbers are variable.but it's a fact that the Europeans did all they could to launch that Crusade!

    Grifman exactly wrote: "Thats baloney. There were no 600,000 man armies in the middle ages" See? There are hyphens which means the sentence is grammatically wrong.If he said 600,000-man-army that would be correct.But he didn't ,so I'm the one who's right.

    I do English lectures for $15.U'd better hurry as u have a long way to go!!!
    Every time The Turks make a decision,it's bound to happen -one way or another!!!

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO