• 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.
Aegnor said:
Have you already decided if you'll renumber all the provinces or add the new province after the last id ?

Everything is being re-numbered as it would have been too much hassle with regards to the ID layer to find every province that has stayed the same and what provinces are new.
 
Norrefeldt said:
Interesting. I'm very very interested to read about it, and apparently you have read it. Where can I find this? The sooner I can get my hands on it, or you can present it here in detail, the sooner all the names can be changed! :) Before that nothing will happen. :(

Are you suggesting I'm not telling the truth? I must admit, I thought this was basic historic knowledge and I'm disappointed if it isn't, because that clearly shows how the Turks like view it as they have lived their for the last 5000 years or something, but fact is that It was Greek (also Mycenean) from about 2000 B.C. until 13-14th century, but still had a rather large Greek population. And It's very logic with the Kaliphate's tolerant policies towards Christians and Jews, that these fracton stayed alive for many years. And it is also logic that the inhabitants in the cities, who were tolerated and in contact with their religious figures in Europe, stayed Christian.
But after 1920 it happened in the Mid East as every other place on Earth, people from the country moved into the cities to get work. And the peasants or whatsoever i Mid East, was the Moslems, who were majority of the population very early, but not in the cities until this point.
 
Filip de Norre said:
Because of that, I can't find any excuse for not giving the Asia Minor provinces their correct names, in Greek. Or at least in English, but don't let false humanism take control, and give Turkish names just for showing that it is Turkish today. The cities were basically Greek, not turkish, at the time.
I believe the generally accepted AGCEEP standard is that (and somebody correct me if I'm wrong) we use the name in common English usage, for the region in this time frame. I'm not saying you're wrong about anything you've said; just that demographics, while important, are not necessarily the key factor.
 
Filip de Norre said:
Are you suggesting I'm not telling the truth? I must admit, I thought this was basic historic knowledge and I'm disappointed if it isn't, because that clearly shows how the Turks like view it as they have lived their for the last 5000 years or something, but fact is that It was Greek (also Mycenean) from about 2000 B.C. until 13-14th century, but still had a rather large Greek population. And It's very logic with the Kaliphate's tolerant policies towards Christians and Jews, that these fracton stayed alive for many years. And it is also logic that the inhabitants in the cities, who were tolerated and in contact with their religious figures in Europe, stayed Christian.
But after 1920 it happened in the Mid East as every other place on Earth, people from the country moved into the cities to get work. And the peasants or whatsoever i Mid East, was the Moslems, who were majority of the population very early, but not in the cities until this point.

No, it's not logical. By the time we start the game the Levant has been ruled by muslims for 800 years. I'm not challenging Anatolia, but it is hardly standard historical knowledge that Damascus, Jerusalem, Cairo, Alexanderia, and Amman had Greek majorities still by 1419 AD. I've always been interested in what happend to these populations, so I'd love to see evidence of the demographic shifts too.
 
Filip de Norre said:
Are you suggesting I'm not telling the truth? I must admit, I thought this was basic historic knowledge and I'm disappointed if it isn't
Tsk, tsk. Being oversensitive, aren't we? He is merely asking for proof which is standard procedure around here. After all, if it is basic historic knowledge, it should be in every history book and it should be easy for you to produce at least a couple of quotes or some published figures. I suppose that basic knowledge came to you from somewhere other than your own reasoning.
 
Fodoron said:
Tsk, tsk. Being oversensitive, aren't we? He is merely asking for proof which is standard procedure around here. After all, if it is basic historic knowledge, it should be in every history book and it should be easy for you to produce at least a couple of quotes or some published figures. I suppose that basic knowledge came to you from somewhere other than your own reasoning.

No need to hop on him too. I think the other posts have made this point clear. :p
 
doktarr said:
I believe the generally accepted AGCEEP standard is that (and somebody correct me if I'm wrong) we use the name in common English usage, for the region in this time frame. I'm not saying you're wrong about anything you've said; just that demographics, while important, are not necessarily the key factor.

Agree, English would be best it that's the policy. But it's either national names or international names (English), the policy is international, and that's also the best IMHO. :D
 
Fate said:
No, it's not logical. By the time we start the game the Levant has been ruled by muslims for 800 years. I'm not challenging Anatolia, but it is hardly standard historical knowledge that Damascus, Jerusalem, Cairo, Alexanderia, and Amman had Greek majorities still by 1419 AD. I've always been interested in what happend to these populations, so I'd love to see evidence of the demographic shifts too.

Ok who mentioned Cairo, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Amman??? Amman a major???? that's another story.

Well of course these 4 cities were isolated much more than the others, so clearly moslems had a majority, but not even close to a 100. Only Egypt really managed to do anything about, the Levant were sooo interesting for the Europeans, which hindered the policies here. But Damascus, and many cities in the Levant, also Jerusalem, were so close to other Christian states, especially the Eastern Empire, also the Crusaders later. But under the crusades most Christians and Jews were banned in the major cities. But the northern parts, which had nothing direct to do with the crusades, stayed christian until 1920. Like Adana, Aleppo, Antioch and Damascus. And of course all of Asia Minor and Anatolia as the Turks were nomads and peasants, not burghers or citizens in any kind. The Turks became nobility and governed the provinces, but the cities were controlled by the Sultan, and the Greek citizens, who actually supported the Sultan, as it was lower taxes than under the Roman Empire. That's why the Turks had no reason to touch the city hierachy, and they didn't until 1920 with Kemal Ataturk, who wish to reform Turkey into a modern state. It was only in Egypt, the Moslems managed to reform into a citizen culture, instead of nomads. (the Arabs was nomads!) Jerusalem was a holy city, which makes it a different case.
 
Filip de Norre said:
Are you suggesting I'm not telling the truth? I must admit, I thought this was basic historic knowledge and I'm disappointed if it isn't, because that clearly shows how the Turks like view it as they have lived their for the last 5000 years or something, but fact is that It was Greek (also Mycenean) from about 2000 B.C. until 13-14th century, but still had a rather large Greek population. And It's very logic with the Kaliphate's tolerant policies towards Christians and Jews, that these fracton stayed alive for many years. And it is also logic that the inhabitants in the cities, who were tolerated and in contact with their religious figures in Europe, stayed Christian.
But after 1920 it happened in the Mid East as every other place on Earth, people from the country moved into the cities to get work. And the peasants or whatsoever i Mid East, was the Moslems, who were majority of the population very early, but not in the cities until this point.
Not suggesting anything, just wanted to move the discussion to a more scholarly level, since it is a debatable subject and you seem to have sources available.
It's not common knowledge where I live, and the old school map I found of languages in Europe 1900 showed only spots in Turkey as being Greek. (A publicist company made them, I really wonder where they got the data from, and how trustworthy they are. No references given.)

doktarr said:
I believe the generally accepted AGCEEP standard is that (and somebody correct me if I'm wrong) we use the name in common English usage, for the region in this time frame. I'm not saying you're wrong about anything you've said; just that demographics, while important, are not necessarily the key factor.
Right now it is English names for them, but AFAIK it wont be so in the new map. (Garbon's post from Nov 30 2005, 09:05 AM, page 4 in the thread "Anatolian province names, Greek names in Turkish land", HC forum, and some following posts later on.) IMO it's as logical to have Turkish names for provinces that are Turkish speaking the entire game, as to have Swedish names for provinces in that are Swedish the entire game. Even more so since OE is one of the key nations of 1419-1819 history.
 
Last edited:
Garbon said:
Well the turkish names in Anatolia for the new map are..."Turkish-English" names? They are names that are influenced by Turkish that feature in English language sources. After all, I don't know turkish. :p
That's exactly the sort of names that I mean. We should use the most common name for the reigon from English language sources. In many cases, this will be very slightly (or not at all) Anglicized versions of the native language name. That's fine of course.

The goal of this naming convention is neither political correctness nor historical accuracy - the goal is familiarity. Also, if we pick the most common English referenced name, it makes it easier for those who are curious to look things up and learn more.
 
doktarr said:
The goal of this naming convention is neither political correctness nor historical accuracy - the goal is familiarity. Also, if we pick the most common English referenced name, it makes it easier for those who are curious to look things up and learn more.

Agreed, the second point is, I think, one of the strongest arguments for this approach.
 
doktarr said:
That's exactly the sort of names that I mean. We should use the most common name for the reigon from English language sources. In many cases, this will be very slightly (or not at all) Anglicized versions of the native language name. That's fine of course.

The goal of this naming convention is neither political correctness nor historical accuracy - the goal is familiarity. Also, if we pick the most common English referenced name, it makes it easier for those who are curious to look things up and learn more.

Well, I can't remember this? Is it policy to avoid Provinces named after their capitol city? Like a province named Cologne, and the city is also Köln, which is the same. If we avoid that it's best to use the most common names for the provinces, but if we get provinces called by the city, they should have Greek names, as that is what they had, like Constantinople, Smyrna, Trapezunt, Edessa, Ephesos, Antioch, Sinope, Alexandretta and Ancyra.

But as you point it, this is not a part of Turkish foreign policies towards the EU (AFAIK), like all their ideas with "no Armenians ever killed by Turks".

So it would just be best to give them common names, as Paradox did very well in the original map, names everyone can accept, but still it should be correct, not political.
 
Garbon said:
Well the turkish names in Anatolia for the new map are..."Turkish-English" names? They are names that are influenced by Turkish that feature in English language sources. After all, I don't know turkish. :p
Hard to comment on this one, since I don't know exactly what you mean. As long as they are Turkish-English and not Greek-English I'm satisfied. Are they much different from the ones I refered to? Anyhow, no need to change anything for the first version of the map. If we allow for nit-picking it will never be finished.
 
Filip de Norre said:
But as you point it, this is not a part of Turkish foreign policies towards the EU (AFAIK), like all their ideas with "no Armenians ever killed by Turks".
I think that's a completely different discussion, and better left out of here.
 
Jinnai said:
That doesn't always help with some of the more remote regions outside Europe.
Garbon said:
[/QUOTEThere was little known about Inner Chinese provinces by any european country, even Russia. Same for inner Africa (which will be in the new map), etc. Even today many people aren't familiar with those terms. Even areas like northern Japan or SEA the names used would not be the ones people would understand today. FE: I have seen a lot of people questioning why Hokkaido is known as Ezochi because they never knew it by any other name and Ezochi and Hokkaido are nothing alike and finding info on the island as Ezochi isn't exactly easy.
 
Norrefeldt said:
Hard to comment on this one, since I don't know exactly what you mean. As long as they are Turkish-English and not Greek-English I'm satisfied. Are they much different from the ones I refered to? Anyhow, no need to change anything for the first version of the map. If we allow for nit-picking it will never be finished.

But that depends on if they should have city names or not, if with city names, Greek-English names (which some have in EU II)

If only provinces, most provinces should have Turkish-English names, as Turks controlled the provinces. Most of them, provinces like Morea, Trapezunt and Thrace was stille totally Greek.
 
Filip de Norre said:
But that depends on if they should have city names or not, if with city names, Greek-English names (which some have in EU II)

If only provinces, most provinces should have Turkish-English names, as Turks controlled the provinces. Most of them, provinces like Morea, Trapezunt and Thrace was stille totally Greek.

You can chat this up as much as you want. However, I'm not changing the names from what we've had now at this point.