Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 70

Thread: About The TURKS

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  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
    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

  9. #9

    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.

  10. #10
    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

  11. #11

    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!!!

  12. #12

    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.

  13. #13
    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

  14. #14

    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.

  15. #15
    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"

  16. #16
    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

  17. #17

    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!

  18. #18
    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.

  19. #19

    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!!!

  20. #20

    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

  21. #21

    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!!!

  22. #22

    Default Re: About The TURKS

    Quote Originally Posted by the_ak07
    I do have reliable Turkish sources.
    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!

  23. #23

    Default Re: About The TURKS

    Quote Originally Posted by the_ak07
    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.
    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.

    And the army lost at least%80 of its soldiers.
    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.

    The first Crusade was a baloney
    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 :)

    They took Nicea but guess what then? The Seljuks captured it immediately afterwards.
    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.

    The Seljuks had the second most powerful units of that era(after german cavalry knights).
    Since we aren't discussing the merits of Seljuk cavalry vs. Western knights, this is irrelevant.

    Knowing your mistake is the first step to correct it-your bein powerless!
    A wise position to take given the historical mistakes you've made :)

    by the way u wrote "600,000 man" yeah the plural form of "man" is "man" again.
    Not in the way I used it.

    I can give English lectures for 25$ per hour!!!
    Uh, don't give up your day job to teach either history OR English.

  24. #24

    Default Re: About The TURKS

    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...
    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.

  25. #25
    Prussian Musketeer Member Faenaris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Belgium.
    Posts
    348

    Default Re: About The TURKS

    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%.
    Last edited by Faenaris; 12-30-2006 at 13:12.
    Signature by Atterdag

    "Hunde, wollt ihr ewig leben?" ("Dogs, do you want to live forever?") - Frederick II of Prussia at the battle of Kolin when adressing his fleeing Prussian soldiers.

  26. #26
    Enforcer of Exonyms Member Barbarossa82's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Englaland (and don't let the Normans tell you any different!)
    Posts
    575

    Default Re: About The TURKS

    Quote Originally Posted by the_ak07
    I can give English lectures for 25$ per hour!!!
    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.
    Last edited by Barbarossa82; 12-30-2006 at 13:19.
    Self-proclaimed winner of the "Member who Looks Most Like their Avatar" contest 2007

    My Armenian AAR

  27. #27
    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

    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.
    Last edited by Shahed; 12-30-2006 at 14:25.
    If you remember me from M:TW days add me on Steam, do mention your org name.

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

  28. #28
    Senior Member Senior Member econ21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    9,651

    Default Re: About The TURKS

    Quote Originally Posted by Sinan
    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.
    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.

  29. #29

    Default Re: About The TURKS

    Quote Originally Posted by Sinan
    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.
    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.

  30. #30

    Default Re: About The TURKS

    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
    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.

    They cannot reflect a nations culture wrongly.
    Uh, guess again. Name one culture or religion in the game you feel is represented 100% accurately.

    There may not have been as many as 600,000 men but there were on of the biggest armies in history.
    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.

    but it's a fact that the Europeans did all they could to launch that Crusade!
    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.


    The first Crusade was a baloney
    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.

    I do English lectures for $15.U'd better hurry as u have
    It's 'you' not 'u'. That's certainly a far more egregious mistake than leaving a hyphen out of 600,000 man army.
    Last edited by Ulstan; 12-29-2006 at 22:55.

Page 1 of 2 12 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