• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Welcome to the 24th development diary for our empire building game Europa Universalis IV and today we turn our eyes to one of the most interesting nations and a favorite because of its location and variety – The Ottoman Empire.

Ottoman Possibilities

When your story begins in the Grand Campaign, the Empire prospers under the rule of a line of committed and effective Sultans. In fact, we take our starting date from the dramatic Ottoman victory over an alliance of Christian monarchs at Vama in November, 1444. The Ottomans have flourished economically due to their control of the major overland trade routes between Europe and Asia. The Ottoman Empire is one of the most powerful states in the world – a multinational, multilingual empire.

Will you be able to reign and expand your empire over three continents? Will you be able to become a dominant naval force, controlling much of the Mediterranean Sea as well as become a major player of the European continental political sphere? Will you become the only power with a just claim to the title of universal ruler?

Or will your military and bureaucratic structures come under strain after a protracted period of misrule by weak Sultans. Will you fall behind the Europeans in military technology as the innovation that fed the Empire's forceful expansion became stifled by growing religious and intellectual conservatism? And will the discovery of new maritime trade routes by Western European states allowed them to avoid the Ottoman trade monopoly unless you take over the trade routes?

Choose, and choose wisely. Let the game begin.

Most players make an immediate move to eliminate Constantinople, the capital of a now tiny and irrelevant Byzantine Empire. Turkish missions push you in this direction, too, and it’s a natural opening act (once the Western border is secure). Taking this rich city means controlling all traffic to the Black Sea, greater ability to limit European land incursions into the core Turkish provinces in Anatolia, and a chance to move the capital to the greatest city on earth.

But Turkish expansion is a double-edged sword no matter which direction you go. If you continue to move into Europe, you will add Orthodox and Catholic provinces to a realm already teeming with non-Muslim citizens. Expand west to consolidate your holdings in Asia and you risk alienating Muslim rulers that would be better as allies. And to the South you have the Mameluks, a potential rival for power over the Levant.
The Ottomans start in 1444 with a lot of assets, some in the form of ideas and missions we’ll get to in a bit. They also have a navy that competes only with Venice for power in the Eastern Mediterranean, a starting Sultan of great ability and – for the moment – military superiority to or parity with the European monarchs that wish to drive Islam of the continent.

Ottoman Dynamic Historical Events
As a major power throughout this period, we have written quite a lot of events for the Ottoman Empire, but there are two event series that truly stand out.

The Provincial System
The Empire contains numerous provinces and vassal states, and many were under the control of Beys, provincial governors that ruled over these districts as a general would on the battlefield. Historically, this worked well to keep the Empire running smoothly with local initiative to handle local problems in a land too varied for a one-size fits all policy. But it also depended on a Sultan that knew how to rein them in. In Europa Universalis IV, local Beys, especially in far-off provinces, may demand more autonomy in form of a Provincial System to stay loyal to the Sultan. If they are given too much autonomy, though, you might have problems with corruption of the Beys or revolts from unhappy soldiers that don’t respect the system in place. But then suppression has its own cost if the Beys band together to simultaneously rise against the Sultan...It’s a balancing act that comes into play if the Empire grows too large.

The Janissaries
The Janissaries were the heart of the Ottoman army, and through reforms and granting them more and more rights, the player as Sultan may build up his Janissaries into the elite infantry they represented historically. But beware! Granting them too much power might lead to their decadence, or worse, becoming a threat to the Sultan. Palace Coups or revolts might follow, and in the end, disbanding them might be the only alternative. Can you risk weakening your army in the short term while you find new sources of power?
Both of these event series represent the core problems facing the Ottoman Empire through this period. With a strong Sultan, you can make up for more inefficient government or a slightly weaker infantry, since you can spend your Monarch Power Points to shore up problems caused by a multinational, dispersed and devolutionary government. But a series of weak rules in an Empire that needs to constantly reinforce its legitimacy will face grave repercussions.

Ottoman National Ideas
The Ottoman Empire starts with a 10% bonus to its army discipline, and creates core provinces 33% faster and more cheaply.
  1. Ghazi: +33% Religious Unity & increase manpower when fighting religious enemies.
    Ghazi is a title given to great Muslim warriors, analogous to Khan or Caesar or Johan. It was also a term given to Ottoman warriors that spearheaded Turkish invasions and raids into non-Muslim land. Fight the enemies of Muhammad, and the nation will rally around you.
  2. Timariot System: +15% cavalry power.
    The Timariot Sipahi cavalry were, with the Janissaries, an elite core of troops within the Ottoman army. Tightly connected to the bey system, Timariot soldiers were given land in return for service, ensuring their loyalty.
  3. Autonomous Pashas: -3 Max War exhaustion.
    Powerful and respect governors and generals became known as Pashas. It came with great honors and responsibilities and those given control of territory within the empire became great lords that would work hard to preserve their privileges.
  4. Ottoman Tolerance: +3 Tolerance Heretic, +3 Tolerance Heathen.
    As was customary in many Muslim empires of the Middle Ages and Renaissance, non-Muslims were not forced to convert not were they regularly harassed beyond the occasional higher tax. In Europa Universalis IV the Ottomans have a much lower chance of religious revolts because of this tolerance.
  5. Law code of Suleiman: +10% Tax Income.
    Suleiman is one of the great rulers of history – a soldier, a lawmaker and a reformer. In fact, where the West knows him as Suleiman the Great or Magnificent, in his homeland he is called The Lawgiver. A central part of his reforms was re-examining the taxation of Turks, especially taxes levied on Jews and Christians, taxes for manufactured goods and anti-corruption measures.
  6. Tulip Period: +10% Trade Income.
    Named for the high priced flower that became a symbol of refinement, the Tulip Period was an early 18th century attempt to Westernize the Empire. A strong viziers and a time of peace allowed the Ottomans to focus on new trade relations and greater experimentation with foreign art and architectural styles. It was also a decade of decadence and distraction, in the eyes of many Turks, and subsequent failures on the battlefield ended this period of innovation and garden parties.
  7. Imperial School of Naval Engineering: 20% cheaper ships.
    Always a major naval power in its region, the Ottomans didn’t found a proper naval academy until the 1770s. Naval engineering was one of the centerpieces of the curriculum.

When the Ottoman Empire has reached it full capabilities and unlocked all of its National Ideas, it also get a +20% bonus to manpower recovery speed. With these ideas, they are a really expansionist military country, that have far fewer problems with holding a realm with diverse religion. Lower war exhaustion and stronger religious unity in the early game will help greatly with the rapid growth the Ottomans need to keep from falling too far behind its Western neighbors.
attachment.php


Bonus Detail: Westernization

Experienced players are now thinking about how to goose the Ottomans so they can remain a dominant military and technological power. As you know, the Western tech group gains knowledge faster than others, and as the Ottomans do not belong to it they will eventually trail them.

In the original version of Europa Universalis III, you could sometimes get a random event (if the stars aligned) and you could upgrade into a better technology group. With later expansions this was transformed into a set of complex decisions and events that worked fine for the power user that understood all the consequences, but had severe drawbacks for new users and the AI. Westernization should be an option, but it should also be a clear statement of policy, not something you stumble or exploit your way into.

In Europa Universalis IV, Westernization is a completely defined feature, integrated in the technology system. If you don't belong to the Western technology group, you will now always see whether you have the chance to “level up”.

To start the westernization process, you need to have a neighbor of the Western tech group that is a fair number of levels ahead of you in technology, and you also need to have +3 stability. When you start the process, your stability drops to -3 and all your monarch power is wiped. You have switched to the western technology group, but you paid a heavy price for undoing centuries of tradition.

Then, each month, your progress towards being fully Western goes either forward or backwards. It can never go below 1%, but when you reach 100% you end the process, and get western units as well. So how does the progress work? Well, every month, your current stability is added to the progress. And there are fun events giving you -1 stability or hurting you somewhere else. Westernization should not be a decision taken lightly, especially for large empires. Your nobles and people will often resist and you may need to slow down your progress from time to time to avoid larger pains.

And yes, as a New World nation you can switch directly to western once the Europeans show up, but you have a fair amount of catching up to do anyway.
 

Attachments

  • eu4_16.png
    eu4_16.png
    2,5 MB · Views: 47.389
That's why I have stated or form nation Turkey decision.

That would be an anachronism even worse than "Greece". I think "Sultanate of Rum" is what you are looking for. That was the name of the pan-Turkish state on Roman lands.

This is true.Ottoman rulers, being Sunni , were incredibly harsh agains Shia populations especially during 16th century.

It is not as true as you might think. What happened was that the "Shia" tribes in Turkey sided with the Safavids in Iran and rebelled. That's why the Ottomans persecuted them in the 16th century. They had no problem with the Janissaries or the Balkan peoples being "Shia".
 
How does that make it impossible exactly? The ottomans would first have to take Constantinople and if the player is controlling the roman empire then them achieving that isn't guaranteed. Heck even with the ai it isn't 100% guaranteed if the ottomans screw up somehow or their neighbours decide to attack and crush them for one reason or another. Plus conquering a nation does not equate one to be the heir of whatever legacy it had.

If Byzantium won the battle aganist Ottomans they can restore the Byzantium, not the whole Roman Empire. Even if you conquer Rome and other Roman proviences, you can't take the "Roman Empire" name for Byzantium.
 
If Byzantium won the battle aganist Ottomans they can restore the Byzantium, not the whole Roman Empire. Even if you conquer Rome and other Roman proviences, you can't take the "Roman Empire" name for Byzantium.

Byzantium is a neologism. There was no question for the Greeks that their Empire was Rome's.
Paradox Team already said restoration of Rome with Byzantium is impossible because Ottomans are the true heir of the Roman Empire

That was just Johan trolling the Byzzies. Nobody would say such a thing seriously. Even the Russian claim is orders of magnitude superior.
 
Please, Russian claim was not taken seriously by anyone including themselves in the 1450s. Ottoman one rightly was taken seriously. Ottoman claim was stronger than the HRE's claim, actually. Ottomans were supported by the Patriarchate, were relatives of the ERE royalty (both Paleologos and Kantakuzenos lines) and ruled in Constantinople over ERE lands. Only the Pope did not accept the Ottoman claim, but he made it clear in a letter that if Mehmed II converted to Catholicism he would accept the claim readily.

Were the Ottomans heir to the Roman Empire then? Not really. Were their claim "orders of magnitude weaker than Russia's"? Definitely not.
 
That would be an anachronism even worse than "Greece". I think "Sultanate of Rum" is what you are looking for. That was the name of the pan-Turkish state on Roman lands.

It doesn't matter much, there are a lot of unification's in EU3, some of them actually happened. Some of them outside the time frame of EU3/EU4 (like the unification of Italy in 1861, unification of Romania in 1862, unification of Germany in 1871) others even never happened (like the unification of Hindustan (India/Pakistan) or the unification of Malaya (Indonesia/Malaysia)).

I would like to see something similar to those unification's or at least an event/decision for the Turkish minors (Saruhan, Aydin, Karaman, Candar, Ramazan, Dulkadir, Mentese) in case the Ottoman empire disappears and the minors revolt. Similar events/decisions exist like there is for the French minors (form France), English minors (form England) and so on.

It would also be nice if we could get Egypt with Mameluke sultanate and Turkey with the Ottoman empire (THE should be dropped from The Mameluks and Ottomans just sounds weird. Adviser X was born in the Ottomans... ?)
 
Last edited:
It is not as true as you might think. What happened was that the "Shia" tribes in Turkey sided with the Safavids in Iran and rebelled. That's why the Ottomans persecuted them in the 16th century. They had no problem with the Janissaries or the Balkan peoples being "Shia".

That's only because the Bektashi order in Europe was under much closer state control and supervision (unlike the Bektashis in Anatolia who were actively proselytizing for the Safavids). They were essentially a tool and thus their tendency to venerate Ali was overlooked. However other orders who had Shi'i tendencies were not overlooked, and in most cases they were actively persecuted, regardless of their feelings about the Safavids.
 
Byzantium is a neologism. There was no question for the Greeks that their Empire was Rome's.


That was just Johan trolling the Byzzies. Nobody would say such a thing seriously. Even the Russian claim is orders of magnitude superior.

Im just trying to say you can't see the "Roman Empire" name on the EUIV map. Even if you conquer Europe and Anatolia with Byzantine Empire, the Empire's name will not change. =)

I think he was not trolling. After the fall of Constantinopole, Mehmed II declared himself the true heir of the Roman Empire. Beylerbeyi is totally right about that:

Please, Russian claim was not taken seriously by anyone including themselves in the 1450s. Ottoman one rightly was taken seriously. Ottoman claim was stronger than the HRE's claim, actually. Ottomans were supported by the Patriarchate, were relatives of the ERE royalty (both Paleologos and Kantakuzenos lines) and ruled in Constantinople over ERE lands. Only the Pope did not accept the Ottoman claim, but he made it clear in a letter that if Mehmed II converted to Catholicism he would accept the claim readily.

Were the Ottomans heir to the Roman Empire then? Not really. Were their claim "orders of magnitude weaker than Russia's"? Definitely not.
 
That's only because the Bektashi order in Europe was under much closer state control and supervision (unlike the Bektashis in Anatolia who were actively proselytizing for the Safavids). They were essentially a tool and thus their tendency to venerate Ali was overlooked. However other orders who had Shi'i tendencies were not overlooked, and in most cases they were actively persecuted, regardless of their feelings about the Safavids.

I am not so sure about "state control and supervision". State power was limited back then. They couldn't control what people in Albanian mountain tekkes were doing. Not to mention that a large component of the 'state power' were themselves Bektashi. Given their love of sufism (especially the Mevlevi sort) most Ottoman Padishahs themselves weren't that Sunni either.

The point is, the state tolerated the heretics when they behaved and persecuted them when they rebelled. Of course the persecution was based on religious identity so it could extend to other similar groups especially during war. Sabataist Jews or rebellious Christians were also persecuted when they disobeyed the state. Doesn't mean that the heathens and heretics were persecuted as a principle.
 
Im just trying to say you can't see the "Roman Empire" name on the EUIV map. Even if you conquer Europe and Anatolia with Byzantine Empire, the Empire's name will not change. =)

The distinction is nonsensical, as Byzantium was the "Roman Empire". Its CK2's decision to this effect that makes no sense in this regard.
 
The distinction is nonsensical, as Byzantium was the "Roman Empire". Its CK2's decision to this effect that makes no sense in this regard.

That decision was meant to represent the recognition of Byzantium as the Roman Empire in Western Europe so it does make sense that the decision exists, though I would agree with you that Byzantium should be called the Roman Empire in both games.
 
I think he was not trolling. After the fall of Constantinopole, Mehmed II declared himself the true heir of the Roman Empire.

A totally empty and absurd claim, and yes, the basis for Johan's blatant and slightly offensive trolling.
 
And yes, as a New World nation you can switch directly to western once the Europeans show up, but you have a fair amount of catching up to do anyway.

So that's basically that whole argument about how the New World countries are going to be handled settled: you can westernise once the Westerners show up, but doing so is going to cause major unrest and you'll still be way behind the Europeans. Something tells me this won't please too many of the folk who were insistent that the New World was 'basically comparable' to Western Europe in terms of development pre-Columbus . . .
 
A totally empty and absurd claim, and yes, the basis for Johan's blatant and slightly offensive trolling.

Ottomans have the strongest claim after the fall of Byzantium. Russians maybe have a claim too but its totally empty, no one saw them as the true heir. Even the Patriarchate supported Ottomans for their claim.

Then it was a very strange trolling. Because he is totally right about Ottoman claim. lol
 
Ottomans have the strongest claim after the fall of Byzantium. Russians maybe have a claim too but its totally empty, no one saw them as the true heir. Even the Patriarchate supported Ottomans for their claim.

Then it was a very strange trolling. Because he is totally right about Ottoman claim. lol

Yeah, I wasn't going to go there, but you're obviously extraordinarily biased by nationality.

Not only was the Russian claim infinitely better, but I think I probably have a better claim than Mehmet whatever ever did as Roman Emperor. No offense, but the notion of an infidel trying to lay claim to such a title is still ludicrous even 600 years later. :p How would you feel about a King of Jerusalem declaring himself rightful Caliph by right of conquest?
 
Indeed, it's totally ludicrous for the Roman Empire to fall to someone from a religion different from the previous Emperor. Next thing you know the Roman Emperors will be abandoning the Church of Sol Invictus for some random little Palestinian Church!
 
Indeed, it's totally ludicrous for the Roman Empire to fall to someone from a religion different from the previous Emperor. Next thing you know the Roman Emperors will be abandoning the Church of Sol Invictus for some random little Palestinian Church!
Exactly! Not to mention that Mehmed II marched an army to the capital, defeated the previous ruler and then declared himself Emperor of Rome. When had THAT ever happened before in Roman history?
 
you guys are funny. Beylerbey is right, I think Mehmed was also descended from the Byzantine ruling family of the time (through his mother of grand mother)

*edit* although historians aren't exactly sure if he is that person since the ottoman sultan had a few sons and..well the others were killed
 
Russians haven't even seen any Roman lands in 1453. Saying that they had a better claim is ridiculous Russian bias. Not even Orthodox bias, because real Orthodox authority was the Oecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople.

That said, I believe Trabizond Empire had a better claim than Mehmed II. That's partially why he killed them soon after. :)

Also as I wrote before, I don't think Ottomans were the "Third Rome", like some historians do. But there is no doubt whatsoever that their claim to the Roman throne was stronger than that of the so-called Holy Roman Empire, because HRE was an even bigger fraud.
 
Last edited: