I didn't mean to imply that Catholicism was uninnovative or backwards. I was trying to make the point that religion shouldn't be the main determinant of innovativeness, period, which I think was your point too. So that whether Byzantium is Orthodox or Catholic shouldn't be what determines the tech group (on its own).
I played an interesting game tonight (as Castile, until I got angry at being railroaded into the historical but bigoted choices of the late 1400s - maybe I don't *want* to expel everyone!). Hellas took Albania right off, and then knocked Byzantium around for a while. The frightened Byzantines chose to execute Mustafa instead of releasing him (choice #3 - what were the odds?). Turkey conquered a good chunk of Anatolia, then attacked Byzantium in 1450 (look at the timing!). They took Thrace, in 1451, but were bought off by 450d. Oh, well. They ended up taking it in 1460 with the help of the Venetians (history repeats itself), and the Venetians annexed the capital province of Morea in 1461; Byzantium died as an Orthodox state once more. The level 3 fortress really seemed to make the sieges last the right length of time.
Shi, I'm not sure if you're willfully misunderstanding my arguments, or just really don't like this event. Compared to the existing population in both the Balkans and Anatolia, the Turks would have been a minority (in this case, a Muslim minority among a staunchly Orthodox population). When the political winds changed, the majority population showed surprisingly little compunction about changing their beliefs.
If you're trying to argue that it's impossible for a government to thoroughly "convert" their population at this point in time, I agree with you. That's why the people switched from loyal, Orthodox, Romaoi (as some called themselves into the 19th century) to fairly docile Muslim subjects, on largely their own initiative and at who knows what depth of feeling (if that's what your remark about the Smyrna Greeks in 1922 was implying). If you're arguing that governments of this time period could thoroughly change the cultural identity of their subjects, then I don't really agree, but in that case I don't see what problem you would have with this event anyway.
It's ok if there are large Muslim minorities in various provinces. IRL, there were large Orthodox minorities that didn't go away. Yes, relocating urbanites to the countryside would cause massive disruptions, which is represented by a stab hit that would take years to recover from and revolts that would further destroy the productive value of the region for at least a year. But in a massively rural age, people were much better acclimated to the idea of getting a self-owned farmstead, the goal of most young men, then today's urbanites (or suburbanites, for that matter).
I guess that's a backhanded compliment, so thank you.
driftwood
I played an interesting game tonight (as Castile, until I got angry at being railroaded into the historical but bigoted choices of the late 1400s - maybe I don't *want* to expel everyone!). Hellas took Albania right off, and then knocked Byzantium around for a while. The frightened Byzantines chose to execute Mustafa instead of releasing him (choice #3 - what were the odds?). Turkey conquered a good chunk of Anatolia, then attacked Byzantium in 1450 (look at the timing!). They took Thrace, in 1451, but were bought off by 450d. Oh, well. They ended up taking it in 1460 with the help of the Venetians (history repeats itself), and the Venetians annexed the capital province of Morea in 1461; Byzantium died as an Orthodox state once more. The level 3 fortress really seemed to make the sieges last the right length of time.
Shi, I'm not sure if you're willfully misunderstanding my arguments, or just really don't like this event. Compared to the existing population in both the Balkans and Anatolia, the Turks would have been a minority (in this case, a Muslim minority among a staunchly Orthodox population). When the political winds changed, the majority population showed surprisingly little compunction about changing their beliefs.
If you're trying to argue that it's impossible for a government to thoroughly "convert" their population at this point in time, I agree with you. That's why the people switched from loyal, Orthodox, Romaoi (as some called themselves into the 19th century) to fairly docile Muslim subjects, on largely their own initiative and at who knows what depth of feeling (if that's what your remark about the Smyrna Greeks in 1922 was implying). If you're arguing that governments of this time period could thoroughly change the cultural identity of their subjects, then I don't really agree, but in that case I don't see what problem you would have with this event anyway.
It's ok if there are large Muslim minorities in various provinces. IRL, there were large Orthodox minorities that didn't go away. Yes, relocating urbanites to the countryside would cause massive disruptions, which is represented by a stab hit that would take years to recover from and revolts that would further destroy the productive value of the region for at least a year. But in a massively rural age, people were much better acclimated to the idea of getting a self-owned farmstead, the goal of most young men, then today's urbanites (or suburbanites, for that matter).
I guess that's a backhanded compliment, so thank you.
driftwood
.
