You obviously dont know anything regarding Turkish history.
‘Turkish armies were mostly composed by very few elite troops, surrounded by a much larger host of rabble.’
Are you kidding me ? Turks along with Mongols were probably the most depended on quality nation in the medieval times !
Turks formed the military elite in almost all the islamic world ! In Egypt they became Mamluks, in India they formed Delhi Sultanate, in Iran they formed Ghaznavids, in Central Asia they formed Khwarezmians. They were the primary and almost exclusive choice in Ghulam and Mamluk system of caliphates. Mamluk Sultanate was called ed dewlet-ü Turkiyya ‘state of the Turks’ in Arabic.
Turks did what Normans did in 11-12th centuries since 6th century to 16th century. Founding many empires in foreign geographies as military elite. Only they were better at it and better at warfare. Europe was a village until 15th century.
Look at the battles between Seljuks and crusaders. Historians say Seljuk Empire’s army barely surpassed 20.000 men. In crusade of 1101 Kilijarslan defeated 3 bigger crusader armies in a row.
In 2nd crusade his son Mesut I defeated German king Conrad and one year later the Frankish king Louis in a row both wer outnumbering his army. Crusaders only field victory against Seljuks was in 1st crusade Doryleum at which
when 6-8000 Seljuk Turks attacked 50.000 crusaders. Kilijarslan dared this because he just annihiliated peoples crusade and he expected a similiar peasant army. Still lost 3000 men while crusaders lost 4000 despite being 5 times more outnumbered. Mamluks in egypt defeated crusaders in 7th crusade so bad that even Frankishing Louis IX fell prisoner.
In battle of Al-Mansurah 10600 Mamluks(6000 of which were Arab peasants only 4600 were Mamluks) defeated 25.000 Franks.
If anyone, Franks were the one relying on trash peasants more. Among 25.000 men only several hundred were knights.
In Manzikert 1071 25.000 Seljuks defeated 80.000 strong Byzantine army. Sources sometimes give lesser numbers but actually Byzantines started the campaign with 100.000 men composing the BEST medieval world could offer Franks, Varangians, Turkic mercenaries, Italian crossbowmen etc. 20.000 never reached the battle due to logistic problems. Then Emperor sent 30.000 to a chokepoint to cut the advancement of Seljuks from Syria(Alparslan was fighting against Fatimids) but Alparslan was aware due to superior recon and he outrunned that 30.000 and hit them from the side they didnt expect and routed all of them. Then he faced the remaining 50.000 with his 25.000 men. He did the typical steppe tactics and Byzantine army lost cohesion and started plundering the Seljuk camp. Over this he charged back and destroyed them, Emperor fled to left flank, completely surrounded him, killed his Varangian guards and at this point the right flank thought Emperor was already dead so they started routing and his general Dukas abondoned the battle. When the battle was already lost.
The defecting of the Turkic mercenaries are largely exaggerated. Most stayed loyal and Dukas only betrayed when the Emperor was completely surrounded.
Early 14th century Ottomans were also reliant on Turkic armies. Later on they got degenerated and adopted a more imperial system relying on quantity but that was not in medieval era but renaissence era. The army wasnt even Turkic anymore. In 14th century however there were two major battles that destroyed Serbia who were about to become an empire themselves.
In 1364, 5000 Turkmen akinji defeated 30.000 Serbs and when 7 years later Serbs came with 70.000 men 800 Turkmen akinji annihiliated them using very advanced tactics and superior discipline. The numbers are given by the Byzantine scholar Laonikos Chalkokondyles.
Turks have always been admired and hired by foreign countries. Byzantines had Pechenegs and Avars, even crusaders heavily relied on Turkopoles. In 3rd crusade for example some historians debate Turkopoles were the decisive unit. Frankish chronicles like Gesta Francorum always praise the military capabilities of Turks.
As far as Skirmishing goes, Turks were never great Foot Archers, the best in the era were the Arabs and the English, and everyone else was way behind in this aspect.
Is this a joke ? Turks and Mongols were the best archers of medieval times. Franks especially were admired by the ‘dropping arrows on enemy’ in their Gesta Francorum.
Arabs ? Arabs learnt archery from their Turkic mercenaries. Thumb ring, composite bows etc.
Franks used crossbows, cheaper and faster to train but less efficient compared to archery. Everything you say actually apply to Europeans.
What you call British bow is made of wood. Turkish composite bows were the best of their era. Even today if you check youtube people use either Korean or Mongolian or Turkish bows.
You are thinking really Ottoman centric. But if Ottomans preserved anything from Turkic warfare it was their efficiency in bows. Late Ottoman warfare was an imperial warfare more similiar to Byzantine system. AOE 2 Turks are based on Seljuks, early Turkish beyligs and also early Ottomans.
Thats what I criticise. They say this 9/10 of Turkish AI names in skirmish are Seljuk sultans or beylig leader names but the faction itself is almost exclusively Ottoman and that is late Ottoman. It was a renaissance power at that point not medieval. In AOE3 Ottoman leader is Suleiman(1520-1566) but AOE2 has a Lepanto campaign(1571). I mean it outdates even Suleiman, the Ottoman leader in AOE3.
You know what ? In beta version of AOE2 janissaries were an archer unit and thats how it should have stayed ! Janissaries made their fame as elite archer units first and foremost. They adopted firearms in 16th century. In fact janissaries shouldnt have been the unique unit.
In 1389 there were 500 janissaries.
In 1402 there were 1000 janissaries.
In 1453 there were 6000 janissaries.
In 1528 there were 12.000 janissaries.
They werent the most elite troops neither. The most elite were the Qapıkulu sipahis. Household cavalry. They were chosen among Turkmen children. They were both heavy cav and also heavy horse archers.
Janissaries shined as they adopted muskets and muskets got more important over time.
Blockquote Actual Turk foot soldiers were woefully underequipped and undisciplined, often even breaking easily.
Most elite foot soldiers were archers. There were elite melee ones too. Number three: https://images.app.goo.gl/PbvZ3M4CdWgDYBj5A
Blockquote Turks had Pikes and a few other weapons only when they invaded Europe too. It was not the traditional Turk fighting style, and mostly it was locals that employed them.
Traditional Turk warfare was a lot like the Mongols, Mass Horse Archers to taunt and harrass the enemy, and then move in to saber range for the final blow.
You know this and you still defend Turks mediocrity due to late Ottoman imperial mentality ?
Javelin throwing is a Turkish traditional support.
So you actually want Turks to have all the setbacks of both periods but not the advantages of them ?
Janissary, muskets, bombard cannons arent the traditional Turkic warfare neither.
If Ottomans were going to be influenced, it should have been 14th century Ottomans when they were still somewhat Turks.
Blockquote This is a game, not a simulation. In any case, Turks are one of the best represented civs in the game.
I dont know if they are the worst or not. I dont know every civ in game. But they clearly arent the best represented, far from it. Though the game is overall very bad at representing majority of civs.