PredatoR_TR
Skirmisher
posted 10-27-07 02:29 PM EDT (US)
Hi friends. AOE3 has been released 2 years ago and i know it is a bit late but I just want to correct you about Cavalry Archers.
As you know, only The Ottomans and Russia have them. However Cavalry Archers of Russia is stronger than cavalry archers of The Ottomans. ( + 27 HP, +1 siege attack, +1 range attack) Cavalry Archers of The Ottomans named as Cavalry Archer and Russian ones named as Tartar Loyalist.
Firstly, where 'does the name of '' Tartar '' come from. It comes from Crimea. what is Tartar? actually they are TATAR, not Tartar. lots of name are wrong in AOE3 like Spahi (Orginally Sipahi),
Baratcu (orginally Barutcu or Barutçu), etc. TATARS are one of Turk race since the history of Turks knew. Firstly, they lived in Middle Asia, then immigrate to the west and land to Crimea. From Seljuks, Golden Horde to the Ottomans, Crimea belonged to the Turks. From 15. century until end of 19. century, Crimea belonged to the Ottomans. Tatars have been living in Crimea and they have been Muslim.
Soldier of Tatars were used by The Ottomans and they had been loyal to the Ottomans because same races never betray each other and also they are Muslim.
As all history lovers know, for Turks, horse have been holy animal and the best weapon that Turks have used is ARCHER. while riding a horse, even hitting a small bird is piece a cake for the Turk archers.
As i mentioned, even if the period of game and realism say us that TATARS are Turk and belong to The Ottomans, why have Tatar archers given to Russians, i really cant find a logic.
PredatoR_TR
Skirmisher
posted 10-28-07 09:56 AM
EDT (US)
27 / 49
when i said '' same race never betrays each other'' i meant that Turks and Tatars have been always loyal to each other against Russia. even now Tatars and Russian are like enemy because of historical events.
John GrahamLeigh
Skirmisher
posted 10-28-07 02:51 PM
EDT (US)
30 / 49
This is clearly "discussing the game itself" and therefore valid for this forum. I'm not defending the OP's proposal, which is clearly wrong, or the aggressive way he worded it... but there's nothing wrong with raising the issue per se.
"Tatar" and "Tartar" are acceptable alternative spellings - though it does matter to some people because "Tartar" is derived from "Tartarus" and has the connotation of "the people from hell" - but you might at least spell "Britain" correctly.
General_II
Skirmisher
posted 10-29-07 00:47 AM
EDT (US)
38 / 49
So many generalizations, from a comment that really wasn't all that unrealistic. The Tartars did raid much of Eastern Europe and so it's surprising that they are featured as Russian mercenaries.
He's simply establishing a generic contrast between the two types and asking why they don't conform logically.
The link between these two types is that many nomads that were proficient with cavalry came from Asia Minor. It's not hard to imagine these, now different, groups may have been related by geography, ideology, or ancestry at one point in history.
John GrahamLeigh
Skirmisher
posted 10-29-07 07:15 AM
EDT (US)
41 / 49
Did you not notice my earlier post? What you say is pretty much true of the Crimean Tatars, but certainly not of the Tatar peoples in the rest of the former Golden Horde Khanate which the Russians conquered during the 16th century. Tatar horse-archers served in Russian armies from the Battle of Kulikovo (1380) onwards, and were still doing so during the Napoleonic Wars. These men came from the former Khanates of Kazan, Sibir, Astrakhan etc.
Even the Crimea ceased to be a vassal of the Ottoman Empire in 1774 and was annexed by Russia in 1783, so the Ottomans lost access to Tatar troops well within the AoE3 period.
AoE3 has it right - both Ottomans and Russians can have cavalry archers but most of the Tatars fight for the Russians.
PredatoR_TR
Skirmisher
posted 10-29-07 06:04 PM
EDT (US)
45 / 49
If you hate why you write? simple obsession?
PredatoR_TR
Skirmisher
posted 10-29-07 07:09 PM
EDT (US)
47 / 49
you have slandered me, Sir snoopy.
I will complain you to the Admins.
name issue was an example if you don't understand.
And it's pity that you lie yourself and don't believe in history. I don't care what people write in wikipedia and have i ever used a source from there? NO. If i write something about history, it MEANS i have read about it, i have searched about it and i am sure about it.
I don't care ES will correct this mistake or not. Have i mentioned it? I just want YOU know what real is.
by your words, you make this tread disgusting.
I won't write here in this thread anymore. you can write and enjoy.