• 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.

Europa Universalis IV - Development Diary 26th of September 2023 - Byzantium

On the 13th August 2013, EU4 was released to the public - and with it a small little event pack called “Purple Phoenix” for a country whose popularity was almost uncanny even back then. Over the ten years, this popularity did not stop but rose further and further, and now it is one of the main three focus points of King of Kings.

Welcome to today’s Development Diary which is all about the one country you guys have been looking forward to the most: Byzantium. Hardly in need of any more introduction on the country, as every single patch of EU4 has at least one video tutorial dedicated to the remnant of the Roman Empire. So without further ado, let us jump into the content we can expect for Byzantium in 1.36.

So first thing first: the setup of Byzantium. The province change has been somewhat spoiled already, but I will mention it here nonetheless to confirm it: yes, Mesambria is now part of Byzantium and it will have the Bulgarian core on it:
img1.png


Another change is the adjustments on the stats of its heir, Konstantinos Palaiologos. Although the empire did eventually fall under his rule, it was not anything he could have prevented, and as such the stats he had were a bit unfair considering his experiences as the past Despot of Morea. He is now a 5/2/3!

Speaking of Morea, the area of Morea now starts with +25% Local Autonomy to represent the kinsmen of the Byzantine Emperors ruling over this part of the empire.

Another point of Byzantine adjustments is their ideas. While their +3 TotF and 3% Missionary Strength make them a strong religious country, the rest of their ideas are relatively underwhelming. As Byzantium is an end-game tag it felt kind of justified to balance their ideas a bit better out. Additionally, it is a nice reward for players who survive the early years.

These are the new ideas (Ideas with a # at the start are the modifiers that used to be there pre-1.36):
Code:
BYZ_ideas = {
    start = {
        advisor_cost = -0.10
        improve_relation_modifier = 0.2
        #tolerance_own = 3
    }
 
    bonus = {
        tolerance_own = 3
        #prestige = 1
    }
 
    trigger = {
        tag = BYZ
    }
    free = yes
 
    repopulation_of_countryside = {
        global_trade_goods_size_modifier = 0.1
        #merc_maintenance_modifier = -0.15
    }
 
    byz_roman_empire = {
        core_creation = -0.25
        #global_manpower_modifier = 0.1
        #global_trade_goods_size_modifier = 0.05
    }
 
    ecumenical_patriarch = {
        global_missionary_strength = 0.03
        yearly_patriarch_authority = 0.003
        #global_tax_modifier = 0.1
    }
 
    byz_corpus_iuris_civilis = {    #Replaces byz_admin_power for Purple Phoenix events
        reform_progress_growth = 0.2
        #stability_cost_modifier = -0.1
    }
 
    byz_protect_the_frontiers = {
        defensiveness = 0.15
        #global_trade_power = 0.1
    }
 
    byz_strategikon = {
        discipline = 0.05
    }


    new_imperial_army = {
        global_manpower_modifier = 0.15
        #global_missionary_strength = 0.03
    }
}

With that out of the way, let’s talk for a moment about the intentions for Byzantium. I mentioned in the Persia Development Diary that countries that receive content tend to become a lot easier than they used to be, hence Ardabil received explicitly nothing that could trivialize their early game.

Byzantium is another candidate where we explicitly want it to be a fight for survival. Because of that, the Byzantines will now start with 4 privileges which are more curses than blessings to you:
img3.png

Note: That privilege increases the starting opinion of the Papal State of you by 125. More to it later.
img4.png

Note: The Morale Reduction is only present if you have King of Kings active as the mission tree will give you Land Morale modifiers over the course of the campaign to counteract this privilege.
img5.png

img6.png

All of the privileges with the exception of 'Reliance on Republics' can be removed through decisions. Both the starting privileges and the decisions are part of the 1.36 update.

Additionally to the penalties, the privileges also cause certain events to happen to your country. Our first example is the Union of Churches. Roughly 3 months into the game you get greeted with the following event in regard to the union:
img10.png

While revoking the privilege immediately would prevent the spawn of rebels further down the line, there is an argument to be made for keeping the privilege active as they can trigger the following event if you are in a defensive war against the Ottomans while having this privilege active:
img11.png
I don’t want to spoil this part as this should be rather experienced in your own playthrough. But a little teaser: the second option allows for a very different religious path for the Byzantines!

Moving on, the 'Tax Exemption' privilege also fires an event that can be an early game boon with a long-term penalty.
img12.png

Byzantium has been fitted with many early game events leading up to their eventual demise. While it would be lovely to showcase them all, we only have so much time. So here are a few:
img13.png

Note: that event is firing for the Ottomans. The follow-up event is triggered for the Byzantines.
img14.png

img15.png

img16.png

Also an event for the Ottomans in relation to the Byzantine content:
img17.png

One final thing to mention to make the early game even more of a challenge - the starting reform for the Byzantines has been adjusted with a new penalty… and a new mechanic (more to it later):
img18.png

img19.png

There is nothing more Roman than falling in the back of your countrymen in time of need for a chance to seize absolute power for yourself.

Now that we have the events through, it is time to take a look at the new mission tree for the Byzantines for the upcoming DLC:
img20.png

Note: with 55 missions in one playthrough, the Byzantine tree is the largest of the DLC.

First a few words about the general theme of the mission tree before going into detail: there are vastly different ideas of what is to be expected of a tree for Byzantium (a look into your local Steam Workshop is a fast way to see what I mean). Some would like to see the addition of Hellenism and a whole path revolving around it, others want a mission tree that revolves around the big “what if” questions of a modernized Byzantium that no longer tries to forge its own destiny independently from the Roman legacy.

While all of these ideas are great ones to explore, we have decided to focus on the one path which is generally the one accepted by the majority of the player base which is the ambition of restoring the Roman Empire. The goal was to keep the spirit of the Purple Phoenix mission tree and expand it with flavor so the reconquest of your empire feels like a bigger narrative than just good ol’ blobbing.

The mission tree is split into six parts:
  • A small defensive part with three missions revolving around reinforcing the Theodosian Walls and constructing the Hexamilion Wall
  • A large conquest part starting from “The Impending Doom”
  • A small trade part of the two missions “Peloponnesian Renaissance” and “Monemvasian Merchants”
  • An internal infrastructure part starting from “A Tarnished State” and “Promote the Emporoi”
  • A part about the military and administrative aspects of the Empire
  • And finally the religious part
As usual, I will start with the more obvious part which would be in that case the re-conquest missions. In this branch of the missions, you gain areas of permanent claims after another area of permanent claims. Notable within this branch is the theme of an evolving permanent modifier as a reward. Usually, you get the strong permanent modifier at the end of a mission path. Here, however, you get it early on, though in a very weak state:
img21.png

This modifier will then be further modified through follow-up missions:
img22.png

Finally merged into the finisher reward once you finish the conquest path of the mission tree which requests you to be the Roman Empire:
img23.png
The final version of the modifier at the end of your long spree of conquest has the following bonuses:
Governing Capacity: +300
Global Missionary Strength: +2%
Yearly Prestige: +1
Morale of Armies: +10%
Morale of Navies: +10%
Stability Cost: -25%

Of course, this part of the tree has more to offer than just a growing modifier though. Here are some other great highlights of the conquest part:
img24.png

img27.png

img28.png

Oh, while I am at it: the decision to form the Roman Empire has been adjusted.
img29.png

Note: this will retroactively affect the achievement "Mehmet's Ambition" too. Also, we might add some key provinces to the decision to be part of the Empire - depending on how these changes play out.
img30.png
In total, there are 475 provinces highlighted, and you will actually have to conquer MORE provinces than before. But at least you no longer have to subject yourself to the conquest of Mesopotamia anymore.

Moving on, the next part is about the walls of Constantinople:
img31.png

img32.png

img33.png

I should talk about the elephant in the room here: yes, the Theodosian Wall is a permanent province modifier instead of a unique monument. This is a choice that has been made because we want to spread out the monuments and the Theodosian Walls would be put on a province that already has two static monuments placed on it.

Anyhow, the defensive missions are relatively easy to achieve early game which can give you some significant months to survive the Ottomans.

Now let us take a small look at the small trading missions:
img34.png

Gemistos Plethon is the only, small nod to Hellenism you can expect from 1.36. For more information, I highly suggest checking out Third Odyssey.

With that out of the way, let’s continue with a more exciting part of the mission tree: the internal development and infrastructure missions:
img35.png

img36.png

img37.png

img39.png

And of course the map color in question:
img40.png
It is the color of the Roman Empire.

Continuing on with the religious part of the mission tree. Due to the Council of Florence and the religious policies enacted by the last Emperor, the public trust in the Patriarch and the government has crumbled. This mission branch focuses on rebuilding that trust, limiting the rivals, and eventually bringing the schism to an end. Beginning with the trust:
img41.png

img42.png

While also limiting the ever stronger Muscovy ambition:
img43.png

Restoring the Pentarchy:
img44.png

img45.png

img46.png

Note: this decision is usable every 25 years.

And of course, mending the Schism:
img47.png

Note: the mending will be significantly more difficult though as you must ensure that 300 provinces in Europe are Orthodox and in Orthodox hands. Fortunately, many provinces are already Orthodox. They just need a Roman hand to free themselves from the heretics.

And at last the military and administrative missions. The “Sea Fire” mission lets one already guess what it is all about. So once you finish it, your galleys get +10% combat ability for the rest of the game under the assumption that they are once again using the Liquid Fire.

Now before we continue with the branching missions, let us take a short look at a new mechanic added for Byzantium which is the Pronoia. This new subject type is available to countries with the Byzantine Autocracy, Reformed Byzantine Monarchy, the Roman Empire, and the Roman Republic government reforms.

Nations with Pronoia available will be able to convert their Vassals and Client States into a new type of subject, the Pronoia. The idea of the subject type is to provide military support during your wars. Pronoia Subjects get military bonuses and do not cost a diplomatic relation slot, but are limited by a new modifier – Number of Pronoiars.
The sources of the above include:
+1 per 100 Force Limit
+2 for “Reform the Pronoia System”

img48.png
+2-4 from Byzantine Missions and up to +6 from various idea groups (namely Offensive, Aristocracy, Espionage, Quantity, and Administrative)

As for how to establish and annex these subjects and what bonuses they give, I will let those images speak for themselves:
img49.png

img50.png

img52.png
After you ‘Retract Right to Inheritance’, the Pronoia will be annexed on their monarch’s death. We are looking forward to the “Pronoia Swarms”!

Anyway, back to the missions. Let us familiarize ourselves with the Theme System:
img53.png

As you can see, The Byzantine mission tree utilizes the same Preview System as Persia does: you can choose between a standing-army build or a mercenary, feudal build:
img55.png

First, let us begin with the Standing Army Build. With this rendition, you will be able to take stricter control over the Pronoia subjects that you have, opting for their quality:
img57.png
There is also a mission about the Varangian Guard, allowing you to bring this nearly-extinct guard back to life, making you into the real Lord of Varangian. Lastly, a final mission that gives your troops a bit more firepower while also making them cheaper by granting them +10% Land Fire Damage and -10% Land Maintenance Modifier.

The other branch focuses on building a military based on mercenaries and Pronoiar. The missions here will allow you to focus on the quantity aspect, while also providing bonuses to Mercenaries:
img56.png

img59.png
The final mission here gives an additional +50% Mercenary Manpower and +5% Mercenary Discipline.

Note: All the art is placeholder, as the new icons are currently WIP. All the numbers are also WIP and are subject to change.

That was it for this week. Thank you all for reading today’s Development Diary! My colleague @PDXBigBoss will continue next week with a hefty DD on Georgia, Armenia, and the Qoyunlus!

Before we say goodbye, we thought you'd enjoy a sequel to the most recent Byzantium Comic from FatherLorris:
ByzComicPt2.png
 

Attachments

  • img26.png
    img26.png
    298 KB · Views: 0
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 87Love
  • 63Like
  • 22
  • 9
  • 6Haha
  • 5
Reactions:
Your main complaint about the Ottomans is they fought outnumbered and disorganized enemies, which I disagree with.

But that’s all Spain did for most of this time period. Aztecs? Sick, used native auxiliaries and had tech the natives didn’t have. Rest of the new world? The same.
Oh I agree completely, which is why my metric isn't "amount of land gained." That was your metric. So by YOUR metric, Spain, Manchu, England, and Portugal should be the greatest military powers in the game.

My metric is to actually look at WHICH powers a nation defeated to determine how good their army was. If Spain had a track record of regularly defeating France I'd say their army should be very good. But they don't, so I don't think it should be.

Likewise, if the Ottomans had a track record of regularly defeating Russia, Austria, Naples, or Persia I would say their armies should be very good in the game. But they don't, so I don't think they should be. In fact, they have a track record of regularly losing to Albania, Georgia, Moldova, the Knights, and so on.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
If you want historical accuracy read a book. This is a game and i would like to enjoy it, not having my enjoyment sacrificed for the "historical accuracy" some claim to want. A historical accuracy by the way that dies every game you dont play close to ottomans as they conquer half the map if left unchecked...lol. And Byz shouldnt even be the center of attention here for historical accuracy... they die every game as AI. Stop crying for the fact that Byz players needed some actual content that they finally got. Its a player shaped experience, not the other way around. It is tiresome at this point...
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Likewise, if the Ottomans had a track record of regularly defeating Russia, Austria, Naples, or Persia I would say their armies should be very good in the game.
Oh sit down
  • Crusade of Varna: Ottomans smash a coalition of Hungary, Poland, Lithuania, Bohemia, Burgundy, the Teutonic Order, the Papal States, assorted minors.
  • 1448 battle of Kosovo, Ottomans re-smash an attempted re-coalition of Hungary, Poland, minors.
  • Polish-Ottoman War, Ottomans defeat Polish and Lithuanian forces, forcing them to sign a non-aggression treaty.
  • Croatian-Ottoman war post 1526: Ottomans defeat Habsburg forces, perpetually contesting control of Croatia and Carniola.
  • Selim's various campaigns against Safavid Iran: Ottomans defeat Persian forces.
  • Campaigns in Hungary, culminating at Mohacs: Ottomans defeat Hungarian, Austrian, Bohemian, Bavarian and Papal forces, partitioning Hungary.
  • 1529 campaign culminating in the siege of Vienna: Ottomans decimate Austrian, Bohemian, Bavarian and Spanish armies but do not take Vienna; throw out the Austrians from and cement control over most of Hungary
  • Ottoman-Persian war of 1532: Ottoman forces eject the Persians from Mesopotamia, much of Kurdistan, Armenia, etc.
  • Ottomans eject the Spanish from Tunis.
  • Ottomans later conquer pretty much the rest of North Africa, kicking out the Spanish from Bejaia, Tripoli, Mahdia, etc and defeating the Spanish on the defensive at Djerba, Mostaganem, etc.
  • 1570 Ottoman-Venetian War: Ottomans defeat a Holy League including Spain, Naples, Sicily, Savoy and the Papal States, conquering Cyprus.
  • Ottoman-Persian war of 1578: Ottomans defeat Persians again, kicking them out of Georgia and most of Azerbaijan.
  • 1620 Polish-Ottoman war: Ottomans drive the Poles across the Dniester.
  • 1623 Ottoman-Persian war: Ottomans cement control of the western Caucasus and expel the Safavids from Mesopotamia.
  • Austro-Turkish War of 1664: Ottomans defeat Austrian, Italian, imperial and French forces, expel the Habsburgs from Transylvania and parts of modern Slovakia.
  • 1672 Polish-Ottoman war: Ottomans smash the Poles again, take Podolia and bits of central Ukraine (OtToMaN sTePpE iS dUmB, say EUIV players)
  • 1676 Russo-Turkish war: Ottomans defeat and pursue a Russian force over the Dniepr. The overall "victor" of the war is disputed, but Russia ends up paying tribute to the Crimean Khanate and certainly didn't achieve its goals.
  • 1710 Russo-Turkish War: Ottomans defeat and surround a Russian army commanded by Peter the Great in person. Retake Azov, demolish Russian forts.
  • 1735 Russo-Turkish War: Russians expelled from Crimea, Black Sea confirmed a Turkish lake, outcome otherwise inconclusive.
  • 1737 Austro-Turkish War: Austrians expelled from Serbia, Oltenia.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
To be fair though, didn't they outnumber their opponents in many of those, often by quite a significant margin? Or am I mistaken?
Dunno. It’s not really relevant: besides the fundamental intellectual dishonesty of @Pellucid’s approach, applying a test like that would invalidate basically all of the national ideas in EUIV.

(The overwhelming majority of NI military buffs in EUIV are aimed at producing outcomes, because basically nothing about EUIV warfare is realistic so it’s impossible to recreate why some armies were better than others. The outcome they’re aimed at creating is military dominance where military dominance actually existed. If a power was capable of near-simultaneously spanking Persia in the Caucasus, Poland in Ukraine and Austria in Hungary, “military dominance” is the outcome its NIs should aim to recreate. The feeling of forum Byzaboos notwithstanding.)

He asked for wars against “large stable states” where the Ottomans prevailed and conquered land, and regular defeats of Austria, Russia, Naples etc. I have now shown that this is an (at best) unintelligent if not actively fraudulent way of approaching the question so as to try and force through an answer he’s already decided he wants to be true. I’ve also shown that even on those crippled terms he’s just plain wrong. Further writhing around in the mud trying to find ways to complicate this already nonsensical line of argumentation is silly.

Yes, if you wiggle your semantics around enough you can make anything true. That’s exactly why competent people engage in specific ways: if one wants to argue that historical consensus is wrong, it’s their job to show that historical consensus is wrong, not just find ways of questioning it that no one in the immediate vicinity is capable of shooting down.

Put another way: for a debate to happen, one side needs to be capable of knowing when it’s lost. I do not, therefore, believe a debate can happen here.
 
The overwhelming majority of NI military buffs in EUIV are aimed at producing outcomes, because basically nothing about EUIV warfare is realistic so it’s impossible to recreate why some armies were better than others.
Hey, before this thread gets locked, which is the way I think it’s going, would you care to provide some insight on why the Ottoman army was so formidable at its peak? Was it manpower, training, funding?
 
Hey, before this thread gets locked, which is the way I think it’s going, would you care to provide some insight on why the Ottoman army was so formidable at its peak? Was it manpower, training, funding?
My best understanding is that their success came from flexibility, powered by pseudo-feudalism and a measure of controlled decentralisation (tax-farming, timariot-owning sipahis; powerful sanjaks). Which is why they could meaningfully respond to military challenges in such diverse places at the same time.

Meanwhile, Europe was relentlessly trying to centralise and disempower local landowners. They depended on mercenaries, levies who were hard to project anywhere, and relatively central control. In the long term that was a good investment. In the short and medium term, they were sometimes outclassed.

Layered on top of that, the janissary corps in particular was highly trained and well-equipped. Their rack and pinion muskets were not replicated elsewhere at the time; their use of fire-by-rank tactics was ahead of its time as well. I guess that’s a funding thing?

So the Ottoman state could respond in the near term with local, relatively powerful military force and then back it up with highly-drilled, very capable janissaries from the centre.

The advantage in materiel and drill fell away across the 17th century, hence the turning of the tide around the time of the Great Turkish War. The benefit of being decentralised and pseudofeudal fell away as well, and we see the Ottoman state struggle terrifically with that right up until at least the 1850s.

That’s my best understanding, but I’d be interested to understand better.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Oh sit down
  • Crusade of Varna: Ottomans smash a coalition of Hungary, Poland, Lithuania, Bohemia, Burgundy, the Teutonic Order, the Papal States, assorted minors.
  • 1448 battle of Kosovo, Ottomans re-smash an attempted re-coalition of Hungary, Poland, minors.
  • Polish-Ottoman War, Ottomans defeat Polish and Lithuanian forces, forcing them to sign a non-aggression treaty.
  • Croatian-Ottoman war post 1526: Ottomans defeat Habsburg forces, perpetually contesting control of Croatia and Carniola.
  • Selim's various campaigns against Safavid Iran: Ottomans defeat Persian forces.
  • Campaigns in Hungary, culminating at Mohacs: Ottomans defeat Hungarian, Austrian, Bohemian, Bavarian and Papal forces, partitioning Hungary.
  • 1529 campaign culminating in the siege of Vienna: Ottomans decimate Austrian, Bohemian, Bavarian and Spanish armies but do not take Vienna; throw out the Austrians from and cement control over most of Hungary
  • Ottoman-Persian war of 1532: Ottoman forces eject the Persians from Mesopotamia, much of Kurdistan, Armenia, etc.
  • Ottomans eject the Spanish from Tunis.
  • Ottomans later conquer pretty much the rest of North Africa, kicking out the Spanish from Bejaia, Tripoli, Mahdia, etc and defeating the Spanish on the defensive at Djerba, Mostaganem, etc.
  • 1570 Ottoman-Venetian War: Ottomans defeat a Holy League including Spain, Naples, Sicily, Savoy and the Papal States, conquering Cyprus.
  • Ottoman-Persian war of 1578: Ottomans defeat Persians again, kicking them out of Georgia and most of Azerbaijan.
  • 1620 Polish-Ottoman war: Ottomans drive the Poles across the Dniester.
  • 1623 Ottoman-Persian war: Ottomans cement control of the western Caucasus and expel the Safavids from Mesopotamia.
  • Austro-Turkish War of 1664: Ottomans defeat Austrian, Italian, imperial and French forces, expel the Habsburgs from Transylvania and parts of modern Slovakia.
  • 1672 Polish-Ottoman war: Ottomans smash the Poles again, take Podolia and bits of central Ukraine (OtToMaN sTePpE iS dUmB, say EUIV players)
  • 1676 Russo-Turkish war: Ottomans defeat and pursue a Russian force over the Dniepr. The overall "victor" of the war is disputed, but Russia ends up paying tribute to the Crimean Khanate and certainly didn't achieve its goals.
  • 1710 Russo-Turkish War: Ottomans defeat and surround a Russian army commanded by Peter the Great in person. Retake Azov, demolish Russian forts.
  • 1735 Russo-Turkish War: Russians expelled from Crimea, Black Sea confirmed a Turkish lake, outcome otherwise inconclusive.
  • 1737 Austro-Turkish War: Austrians expelled from Serbia, Oltenia.
  • Varna: Ottomans barely win, and only because the Polish King got cocky and charged the center, getting himself killed. The Ottoman army was too devastated after the battle to press any kind of advantage afterward.
  • Kosovo: An indecisive battle until the Wallachians switched sides. Only proves that Ottoman armies were about as good as Hungarian coalition armies.
  • Polish-Ottoman War: This is post-Liberum Veto. Poland was unable to field a professional army because of internal instability for this battle. So yes, the Ottomans can defeat a smaller force of militia. Not really good evidence for them being superior.
  • 1526 Croatian War: You mean during the Hungarian interregnum and the Austrian civil war? Why can't you give an example of a win against a unified force? Is it because there aren't any? So yes, they can defeat a state in name only and its ally, as long as that ally is currently involved in a civil war. Again, not really showing much superiority.
Anyway I can see where your list is going. Yes, the Ottomans were EXCELLENT at defeating foes who were distracted, who they outnumbered, and who were unable to field professional armies. Very impressive.

The problem here is that you're arguing that the Ottoman army was superior, but you've given no indications of a battle or war where they proved superior. Just a bunch where they can go toe to toe with other armies of about the same size and professionalism or, yes, easily defeat much smaller and militia forces (setting aside that sometimes they even managed to lose against much smaller militia forces). That's not proving your point.

I also like how you list the Ottomans expelling the Austrians from Serbia like, four times during your list. It's almost like it was a long, protracted stalemate where they went back and forth over hundreds of years, and not the resounding Ottoman victories you're pretending they were.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
Anyway I can see where your list is going. Yes, the Ottomans were EXCELLENT at defeating foes who were distracted, who they outnumbered, and who were unable to field professional armies. Very impressive.
Oh so now the arbitrary list of things is not just large, stable states with the stipulation that land changed hands, it's large stable states who were solely invested in that particular confrontation and had absolutely nothing else going on, and land later changed hands? Would you like to move the goalposts some more? Perhaps you would like examples of the Ottoman army defeating large, stable states who were solely invested in a particular confrontation with nothing else going on in the vacuum of space so it can't be because they, for example, had better horses?
The problem here is that you're arguing that the Ottoman army was superior
I'm demonstrating that your whole approach to this question is dishonest and dogmatic. What the Ottoman army was or was not is neither here nor there; you haven't given any reason why we shouldn't just listen to the historical consensus, so as far as I can make out you're yet to make an argument at all.
 
Oh so now the arbitrary list of things is not just large, stable states with the stipulation that land changed hands, it's large stable states who were solely invested in that particular confrontation and had absolutely nothing else going on, and land later changed hands?
Ah yes, the famously large, stable state in the middle of a civil war. Much stable. We're done here.
 
Ah yes, the famously large, stable state in the middle of a civil war. Much stable. We're done here.
So, to recap:
  • Ottomans don’t meet a bar that you made up, and which you haven’t been able to demonstrate Rome, Carolingian Francia or Britain, among others, met. But which you’re nevertheless very sure is the bar that historical powers needed to meet to be great military powers.
  • You similarly haven’t been able to demonstrate that this bar is in any way meaningful.
  • You similarly haven’t been able to demonstrate that your bar-setting is a more reliable means of distinguishing great military powers than the means employed in reaching a historical consensus.
  • And furthermore you are willing to dismiss every example demonstrating you’re wrong on the basis of the defeated state not being “stable” enough for your satisfaction (historical consensus can of course go hang), itself seemingly an arbitrary bar you’ve pulled out of your hat and made no attempt to demonstrate is itself a good, reliable or worthwhile measure. Which is by now a well-practiced manoeuvre.
  • Including, incidentally, dismissing four pre-liberum veto victories against Poland on the basis that they’re “post-liberum veto” (itself of unclear significance), adding bald-faced misrepresentation of facts to historical illiteracy and dishonest argumentation.
  • Therefore on the basis that they don’t meet your made-up bar (except they do, but you’re going to pretend they don’t anyway) you suggest, the Ottomans were not a great military power.
In contrast I have argued:
  • The global historical consensus is that the Ottomans were a great military power.
  • Historians generally know what they are talking about.
  • Absent some compelling reason to believe they are mistaken, the overwhelming body of evidence and analysis is stacked against you.
  • And at any rate, there are plenty of examples of the Ottomans doing things you move the goalposts to insist they didn’t do.
  • So… I’m gonna go with the historians.
We are, indeed, done here. Posterity, I suppose, can judge who was correct.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
Reactions:
Anyway I can see where your list is going. Yes, the Ottomans were EXCELLENT at defeating foes who were distracted, who they outnumbered, and who were unable to field professional armies. Very impressive.
By that standard there should indeed be very little competent military powers left.

Waiting for a moment of weakness (or even intentionally destabilizing) before you launch your campaign isn’t a sign of incompetence, it’s just the economical thing to do. And being restricted to picking on enemies their own size would severity limit who we’re even allowed to compare. It seems clear to me that elite Ottoman troops were indeed on a league of their own, and the rest of their army were about as bad as the bulk of the forces everywhere else at time.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
By that standard there should indeed be very little competent military powers left.

Waiting for a moment of weakness (or even intentionally destabilizing) before you launch your campaign isn’t a sign of incompetence, it’s just the economical thing to do. And being restricted to picking on enemies their own size would severity limit who we’re even allowed to compare. It seems clear to me that elite Ottoman troops were indeed on a league of their own, and the rest of their army were about as bad as the bulk of the forces everywhere else at time.
I didn't say the Ottomans were stupid. I said their armies weren't actually more effective than any other stable, significant power, as is consistently borne out by the evidence.
 
  • 1Haha
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Every time there is content on Byzantium, Turks mald. Same thing happens in Age of Empires IV (in AoE 4 official forums many Turkish posters have been permanently banned).

They deeply hate Byzantium and anything related to it.

It's because they are terrified (whole Turkish society is like this) that one day they will lose these lands. Social issue.
 
  • 2Haha
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Every time there is content on Byzantium, Turks mald. Same thing happens in Age of Empires IV (in AoE 4 official forums many Turkish posters have been permanently banned).

They deeply hate Byzantium and anything related to it.

It's because they are terrified (whole Turkish society is like this) that one day they will lose these lands. Social issue.
But I hate Byzantium and I'm not Turkish?