This is just the ottomans
Slavs suffered 1000 years at least under Turks, Huns, Mongols, Vikings, whatever
1 Like
" Slavery in Portugal occurred since before the country’s formation. During the pre-independence period, inhabitants of the current Portuguese territory were often enslaved and enslaved others. After independence, during the existence of the Kingdom of Portugal, the country played a leading role in the Atlantic Slave Trade, which involved the mass trade and transportation of slaves from Africa and other parts of the world to the American continent. Slavery was abolished in Portugal in 1761 by the Marquês de Pombal. After the abolishment of slavery in Portugal, the Portuguese slave traders turned to clients in other countries where slavery was not yet abolished, predominantly to Brazil.[1] However, Slavery within the African Portuguese colonies was only abolished in 1869 and Portuguese involvement in slavery in its colonies continued into the 20th century. [1] [2]
As for the Atlantic slave trade, this began in 1444 A.D., when Portuguese traders brought the first large number of slaves from Africa to Europe. Eighty-two years later (1526), Spanish explorers brought the first African slaves to settlements in what would become the United States."
The Atlantic trade began in 1444 AD and ended in 1869.
1 Like
Too much cultural essencialism here
2 Likes
I am all for more revolutions but is it really necissary for 1 civ to have 6 options? Most likely 4-5 of those will never be played.
Also Scotland isnt logical as in real life it never became independent even now. Great Britain was a union, so technically Scotland is Great Britain
Which means taht the British civ should have had Scottish units, like the Highlander and the missing Reaver.
They get highlanders as church card and they are already a mercenary unit. Who says the musketeer isnt a scottish one? Or that the hussar is one? It isnt because the voice isnt scottish the unit cant be in general.
It is literally called the Redcoat, which is English. Also, all units speak their mother language in this game, so the musketeer would have to speak Gaelic, like the Highlander, to be Scottish.
2 Likes
Scots in the British army also wore red
If any of the units were Scottish, they would use the same language as the Highlander.
Multilingual armies already exist, so there would be no impediment.
All the British units use Old English, so they are ALL English.
3 Likes
The Scots also speak english even already in AoE III timeline. Still going back to original point it doesnt make much sense having a Scottish revolution.
Whoever @JonOli12 is, he’s speaking from a very prejudiced place. A lot of clear cut arguments have been made here but it’s not really up for debate. The Ottomans bridged Europe and Asia. They were just as European as they were Asian, and by extension North African and Middle Eastern. It’s undeniable with the fact that they considered themselves the successors of the Romans, the court was packed with Europeans, the Sultan would marry Europeans, the Janissary corps were composed of Europeans, and ruled over Eastern Europe for hundreds of years. This isn’t something you can really have a position on unless you’re just trying to find a way to spew hatred. Factually they are European+.
1 Like
-Asiatic language
-Asiatic ethnic group
-Asiatic religion
-Asiatic social structure
-Asiatic warfare and tactics
Where is the European part?
Are you saying the Americans are natives, because they too forced native women?
They were not even affiliated to the Romans in any way. They considered themselves as CONQUERORS of Rome, not it’s descendants.
It has to do with Islamic prophecy, in which Allah tells them they would rule Rome, not any cultural roman tradition.
4 Likes
they are invaders not Europeans. similar to the mongols or huns but more persistent in their existence in Europe. regardless their hardland was in modern day turkey and the levant, not the balkans which rose in revolt in the 1800s.
5 Likes
Ottoman does not mean Turk. Turk means Uzbek, Azeri, Tatar, Kazakh, Uighur, and so for. Not to mention, the Ottoman elites, and the sultans themselves, despised what they called the “common Turk.” That’s why Ottoman Turkish is not mutually intelligible with common Turkish during the empire. The common Anatolian Turkish subject was not speaking the Persianized Ottoman language, they weren’t involved in Devsirme, and they were usually excluded from government posts.
Turkish civilians only fought as sipahi (and those were major exceptions as they had to know Ottoman Turkish to speak to their boss), and some made up azeb irregulars who almost always were barred from promotions. That’s why a large rebellion, the Celali Rebellion, started. They were Muslim, Anatolian Turkish people, many were Azeris too (Alevi Shi’a and some were Twelfver Shi’a) and they wanted the empire to pay attention to them, to stop taxing them so heavily, to turn their focus to the Middle East, and to stop giving the Christians and Jews higher positions.
There was a large revolt in Ottoman Bosnia (In Europe) because the Devsirme wasn’t coming to collect children anymore in that area and the Ottoman sultan granted the Bosnians the right to convert to Islam so they could gain more social mobility, which they did, only because they were European.
Though all this sparks another argument, is Mehmet Ali Pasha’s Egypt Asian, African, or European? Arabic was not the official language, Ottoman Turkish was, Mehmet Ali was not an Egyptian Arab, nor a Turkish Muslim, he was an Albanian, European, who took over Egypt, and then spent many years fighting the First Saudi Rebellion, in Arabia. If anything, he pulled Egypt further out of Africa, towards the Balkans-orientated nature of the Ottomans. His successors reversed that slowly until WW1 when England conquered/stole Egypt.
The Ottomans are a transcontinental civilization, like Arabs and Persians before them. The big difference is, the Ottomans put way more stock and attention into their European possessions and were way more successful at maintaining them.
2 Likes