DLC idea - Qabila - Desert tribes, Slaves, Cadet branches and enhanced islam

[PK_AZ]

I find it kinda amusing how many of your features I'd like to see in my western european kingdom.

The main idea is in fac introduction of Islamic clergy into the game, because it played (and still plays) very important role in the in Muslim societies.
In Ck2 the temple holdings are controlled by feudal holders, which is correct, because in reality the muslim clergy, unlike the Christian, did not control land. But with this step the clergy virtually disappeared, which is problematic.

The plan is to introduce an Islamic cleric - Imam - to every county (or perhaps even holding), a character which would be independent of provincial holder's will (would be auto-generated and not appointed by the player/AI). This Imam, or in larger realms collective of Imams, would represent a natural religious opposition to the player.

Few days ago I was thinking about alternative holding system: every feudal country has 1-7 manors(which represent land) and no more than one of each special holdings(which represent any source of power, thats not land). In this system temple/bishopric is special holding that represents church's authority and influence - similar to family palace from The Republic. Every bishop is de facto vassal and advisor of his count, but he has some targetted decisions he can use for or against his liege (for example tell his co-vassals that they should give count what belongs to count, or they'll burn in hell). If you are king, you have your own archbishop and episcopal conference, which work more or less that same. And of course you can give your land to church (manors(vanilla castles, cities and temples), counties, duchies...).
I'm writing that because, well, maybe special non-land holding is exactly what you need?

 

[elvain]

I find it kinda amusing how many of your features I'd like to see in my western european kingdom.

some /many/ of them could work with some variations also in the Christian world, that's the aim of putting it all down, though I really hope for the others (uniquely un-European - mainly the desert tribal mechanics) to be implemented in the first place.

Few days ago I was thinking about alternative holding system: every feudal country has 1-7 manors(which represent land) and no more than one of each special holdings(which represent any source of power, thats not land). In this system temple/bishopric is special holding that represents church's authority and influence - similar to family palace from The Republic. Every bishop is de facto vassal and advisor of his count, but he has some targetted decisions he can use for or against his liege (for example tell his co-vassals that they should give count what belongs to count, or they'll burn in hell). If you are king, you have your own archbishop and episcopal conference, which work more or less that same. And of course you can give your land to church (manors(vanilla castles, cities and temples), counties, duchies...).
I'm writing that because, well, maybe special non-land holding is exactly what you need?

Sounds interesting. I would however prefer to have those religious figures to be directly tied to the county title, but to every county, so if a count-level ruler holds 2 counties, he would have 2 such characters. I thought about them being unlanded, but this could perhaps somehow work if it wouldn't be possible to make them unlanded (you are right that the game would need something. I can however see a problem with either too many "alternative holdings" or that if the province has trade post, it would no longer have this religious figure, while this religious figure should be present in every county.

But I do armit that this part of the concept is not developed well and I need to think it out more propperly.

 

[elvain]

There is something I forgot to reply, a message hidden at the end of a page:

Your ideas around qabilas are interesting. The Muslim realms are already tightly tied together thanks to the ease of marriage. I'd say the fuzzy nature, as i understood it, of your qabilas organization and collapse /division could be hard to implement in ck2. It seems like a dynamic imperial title with old laws, as it were.

Could I ask for some clarification or expansion to your ideas on that?

Basicaly the system mainly uses and only tweaks and/or expands mechanics which already exist in game.

You can imagine the Qabila as nomadic realm tied together with solidarity-Asabiya /like the oposite of decadence/. In order to keep the solidarity-Asabia high (and thus strenghten the group you are in) you need to strenghten the ties - via marriages, granting titles/land etc. but naturally the more they get, the more they demand and as members of the same group, they can once challenge your power if you happen to have weaker ruler.
You have to deal with 2 Asabiyas/solidarities - of your own dynasty/tribe and of the Qabila/tribal confederation/realm. If your realm is strong, but your dynasty weak, you have high chance of being overthrown by other tribe within your confederation. It is very similar to feudal realm where a too powerfull vasal can claim the throne for himself, so nothing unknown to CK2, the difference is that here it is bit more compact.
To prevent this you can use your own tribal army (like the nomads), but for that you need to keep your dynasty's solidarity high, and thus grant titles/land to your relatives. We all know from current CK2 where too many too powerfull dynasty members can lead, so again nothing really new.
If you are the desert nomad, you can only use and ballance these 2 groups.

If you, however, manage to conquer a "settled" realm and become ruler of the Mulk, you have another tool - the ghulams/mamluks - the slave soldiers and governors. They can be used as balancing force against your own potentialy too powerfull dynasty members and tribes of your Qabila. The positive of this system is that it is imperial mechanic where governors are your viceroys. The downfall is that landed slave captains can and may have their own powerfull armies (slave companies) similar to mercenaries, and if you fail so keep their power balanced with each other and with your own dynasty, they can also challenge your power.

The main difference between the 2 possible challenges is that Slaves usualy have separatist goals, the "own group" challenge (be it your dynasty or the Qabila) tend to overthrow the throne.

 

[elvain]

Part/chapter 7 - reform of the Iqta government

this should be part of a free patch, acompanied with the Qabila DLC.
The Iqta government would be in fact something between the Mulk and classical Feudal governments and with some elements kept from the current setup (now it is in fact feudal government for muslims, the only difference is that religious holdings are treated as feudal/iqta land).

The differences between current Iqta and post-Qabila Iqta governments:

• Newly the rulers in the Iqta government will be able to also use the Slaves - the Mamluks/Ghulams - either as military commanders and leaders of their Slave companies, or as Slave governors (for details, see the chapter 3 - Slaves)
• Usually the Iqta states would be in cultures which don't support the tribal (Qabila) mechanics Persians, but if the Iqta government would also be available to cultures which do have tribal structure and thus the fiefs can also be granted to members of ruler's tribal confederation (Qabila). In this case the succession of lower titles will be according to the tribal customs, while the inheritance of duchy and higher titles will have to be confirmed by the ruler. If he refuses the heir suggested by tribal succession, he can appoint the title to another 2 possible pretenders
• if by any chance any governmental officer (be it commander, councillor or anyone else) would not hold landed title (Iqta), he would cost money and will soon (within 3-6 months) demand a fief of his own (Iqta). For commanders a barony level is sufficent in the first place, a councillor will atomatically demand a county-level iqta.

The differences between Iqta and Mulk governments:

• In the pure Mulk government, the ruler can assign land to members of his dynasty, members of his Qabila and Slaves. However granting the land to other characters is not allowed - that means free nobles outside the Qabila (and dynasty) can not gain land*. OTOH, under Iqta government, anyone can receive an Iqta (fief - feudal title), but there are some limitations: the slave characters (either freed or not), can only be granted county or barony fiefs. duchies and higher ranks are locked to them.
• In imperial Iqta government (i.e. the Great Seljuks), the fiefs of any rank can be granted to anyone as viceroyalities
• (not agameplay but historical thing) - usually the Iqta government will represent West Persian dynasties/states like Buyids, Ziyarids and other, as well as later Turkish Atabegates and dynastic states in Anatolia. Imperial Iqta will be typical for the Great Seljuks. The vast majority of dynastic muslim states, except tribes will be Mulk (typivally the Umayyads, Abbasids, Fatimids, Samanids, Tahirids and Saffarids etc.), while the rest would fall under the Qabila government (even the religious movements like Almoravids were to some extent tribal states)

* Under certain circumstances, however, they can hold it - for instance if the land was granted to a member of some other clan within the ruler's tribal confederation (Qabila) and then, during a Qabila revolt, the clan separates from ruler's tribal confederation (Qabila) - normally if the Qabila war ends decisively for the ruler, the defeated clans' leaders are imprisoned and have high chance of losing their titles. OTOH, if the Qabila revolt wins, the former ruling clan/dynasty is replaced and gets absorbed, and thus is eliminated (game over), unless it recieves an adventurer event to conquer territory at some fringes of islamic world.

 

[sreckom92]

Whether or not this makes it as a DLC (which I hope it will), this was a quality read, and I thank you very much for it.

 

[Gwyn ap Nud]

Wrote a good paper on the Almohads and Almoravids, and how the Almoravids were more of a tribal state / tribal power play with religious trappings, whereas the Almohads were more legitimately a religious revolutionary state, with tribal trappings. I'm glad to see you still updating this!

 

[elvain]

Wrote a good paper on the Almohads and Almoravids, and how the Almoravids were more of a tribal state / tribal power play with religious trappings, whereas the Almohads were more legitimately a religious revolutionary state, with tribal trappings. I'm glad to see you still updating this!

That's very close to how I understand it from my readings. Could I reat that paper? PM maybe?

Definitely want to keep updating.. and also add some pictures so it is more easily imaginable but the time is so... you know

 

[Gwyn ap Nud]

I sent you it via PM.

Yeah, i get that. I hardly have enough time to remember to work on my own mod!

 

[elvain]

thanks! Will check it. I think it could be helpful to develop more in detail the part about religious orders/movements as the other possible government (with some modifications or simpilification for both muslims and christians).

 

[raven63]

Thanks for all the work and knowledge you've put into this!

I'm of the opinion that tribal uprisings as a result of decadence are very much ahistorical. Allow me to explain. The one and only major candidate of such a thing would be the Abbasids revolt against the Umayyads. But it a gross misunderstanding of this revolt to describe it as a tribal uprising. To start with, the Abbasids and Ummyads were dynasties (or at best tiny clans), not tribes. Their numbers were small, and they they were by no means a fighting force in and of themselves.

So where did each of the Abbasids and Umayyads draw their support from? To start with, let's take a look at a term which became very prominent during that era, "Asabiya".

During the Umayyads rule, a major rivalry arose between two large coalitions of tribes; Modar (northern Arabian tribes, roughly speaking) and Al-Yamaniya (southern Arabian tribes). The rivalry and wars between these two coalitions, under the Umayyad umbrella, lasted for a very long time (in fact well into the Abbasids era), and extended from Eastern Iran all the way to Spain. "Asabiya", during this epoque, referred to which of the two tribal coalitions you belonged to. More generally the word meant your tribal allegiance, pride, and hostility towards rival tribes.

Managing this rivalry was a key task almost all Umayyad rulers had to do, with most of them leaning towards supporting Modar, whose members were the backbone of the Caliphal armies of the time. Dissent among the Yamaniya was spreading, but it wasn't those who kicked off the revolt. It was Persians.

The revolt started brewing on the eastern fringes of Iran, where some descendants of Arab tribal settlers (both from Modar and Al Yamaniya), together with a large following of native Persian/Iranian people, were united to face what they saw as a tyrannical and illegitimate rule. They claimed to seek to install someone from the house of the prophet as caliph, but the identity of this person, or his clan, remained unknown until the rebellion was successful. Local nobles and influential people were unhappy that Arabs held a monopoly on rulership, and that must have contributed greatly to the rebellion. I highly recommend reading about Abu Muslim al-Khurasani, a brilliant general who single handedly led and orchestrated the rebellion, taking the rebel army all the way from Eastern Iran to Syria in a notorious campaign. This general was not tribal or Arabic, he was Persian, and most of his troops were peoples local to the region.

What happened next was that the rebels declared an Abbasid as their claimant and installed him on the throne. This guy was Al Safah (the Slaughterer), who started a brutal crack down on the Umayyads and massacred most of them. After consolidating power Al Safah went to war with the man who put him on the throne, Abu Muslim al-Khurasani, and managed to murder him.

All in all, it is not just an over simplification to depict this as a tribal uprising, it is in fact very much incorrect. The most important role played by Asabiya in all of this is that the grudge Yamaniya held against the Umayyads due to them giving preferential treatment to their rivals, Modar, meant that when the time came, the desperate Umayyads could not get any military support from the large Yamaniya tribes (in fact those supported Abu Muslim), which was the last nail in their coffin, rather than the coffin itself.

 

[es333]

Please no more map expansion, my 12GB RAM and Intel i7 and double-videocard system is already dying after India. When I pan around the map, the music and and panning lags.

 

[elvain]

Thanks for all the work and knowledge you've put into this!

I'm of the opinion that tribal uprisings as a result of decadence are very much ahistorical. Allow me to explain. The one and only major candidate of such a thing would be the Abbasids revolt against the Umayyads. But it a gross misunderstanding of this revolt to describe it as a tribal uprising. To start with, the Abbasids and Ummyads were dynasties (or at best tiny clans), not tribes. Their numbers were small, and they they were by no means a fighting force in and of themselves.

Yup, thanks for great analysis. I can't but agree with you. That's why I think the systems outlined fit better to the later eras after 750 - in the Abbasid and later periods.
I do admit this is a simplification based on Ibn Khaldun's theory - The Asabiya here is understood according to this analysis of medieval muslim society, which is contemporary sociology and thus isn't perfect.
It is considered as a factor to help abstracting and simulating coups and revolts and fracturing of muslim societies, not to explain them.
I do admit that Umayyads and Abbasid revolt were not perfect examples - they're far from the ideal case. Though they are closest to a decadence revolt we can get in islamic history (on the top of my mind). Most of them are rather gradual disintegrations which end by replacement of ruling dynasty. The goal of this all is in fact to make decadence revolts only marginal thing. Most of the coups, disintegrations and other dynasty changes should be slave or other usurpations which take place in times of weak Asabiya. Asabia isn't meant to trigger decadence revolts, but rather to prevent them, while the other mechanics are there to offer wider scale of internal threats.
The Qabas are there to abstract the momentum of tribal invasions from the desert as depicted by Ibn Khaldun. They should however be rare as they were in history. Most of historical dynasties came to power via coup or usurpation when dynasty lost its traditional power base, or that power base started to act independently and took over.

In the language of this concept the Umayyads were a dynasty/clan* with weak jnternal asabiya due to high decadence. Clans of their own Qabila were strong as were the clans of Yamaniya Qabila... then they faced combined revolt of their own and another Qabila... and in the end the new ruler was a leader of one of revolting clans (of own Qabila) though not the original leader of the revolt. Not perfectly fitting but still within the framework, isn't it?

*no need to take these literally.

I don't think any historical muslim or other dynasty worked by rules I outlined. But I do believe most of them could somehow fit jnto the framework with some level of abstraction and simplification. Though I don't doubt you'd find ones where this abstracrtion would be very distorting.

Please no more map expansion, my 12GB RAM and Intel i7 and double-videocard system is already dying after India. When I pan around the map, the music and and panning lags.

Oh, that's terrible! But maybe something else is wrong.I have far inferior laptop and the game runs smoothly.
Anyway, please read before posting. These 14 or so added provinces will definitely not ruin your great computer.
however, this is not about performance issues (14 provinces are nothing what would substantialy influence performance, also there are dozens of other threads about performance where you can complain), but about sharing ideas how to improve gaming experience for desert tribes, muslims and West Africans.

 

[DC123456789]

Adding provinces without expanding the map proper will probably not have much of an effect, if at all, on the graphical lagging you're describing.

 

[BeyondExpectation]

Great work btw, it's been an awesome read.
Two questions:

How exactly to slave viceroys become threats? I know they create decadence/lower Asabiya, but how do they manage to seize power themselves?

What stops a Mulk ruler from relying solely on slave viceroys and keeping the rest of his qabila powerless to ensure that they are not powerful enough to succeed in a decadence revolt?

 

[Yeekim]

Very impressive concept.
I hope Pdox follows this.

 

[elvain]

---content removed by author---

 

[elvain]

Additon to previous post:
As usualy I have only pointed out the negative perspectives, which lead to threat or decline of dynasties without other, constructive and poditive tools to manage the possible threat.

For instance a ruler who made the hajj will be less vulnerable to the demands of his slaves. The positive effect can also be acheived via hunting parties...d3pending on rulers focus, he can also increase his relation with these slave soldiers via organazing military contests, visiting provinces as supreme judge, financing buildings in their provinces, giving them rights to appoint religious judges (qadis), allowing them marriages.
Or there are ways you can get rid of your unwanted slaves via intrigues either using another slave commander or religious judge or by pointing out his un-islamic conduct. All this shouldn't have negative effect against other slave governors. And even if you remove him from position of governor, the negative effect is lower than removing a noble from the position of a viceroy.

 

[UmayyadBro]

The Qabila:
The Ghulams are at the place of Mercenaries.
The crucial factor is of course opinion. Then you can see cost of the company - that's the initial price to hire the company. The other gold value indicates the price needed to reinforce the company and to buy more soldiers (the overlord can do it, but also the captain can buy himself new soldiers if he has enough money).

Why replace Mercenaries with Ghulams, why not simply add another military tab? The non-muslim equivalent could be something like vassal bands, like the Varangian guard for the Byzantines. Also, that would open another possibility, and that's for Mercenaries to be free from religious recruiting limits, and instead just be limited by geography.

 

[BeyondExpectation]

Mostly out of curiosity, what succession law would Qabila and Mulk governments use?

 

[elvain]

Why replace Mercenaries with Ghulams, why not simply add another military tab? The non-muslim equivalent could be something like vassal bands, like the Varangian guard for the Byzantines. Also, that would open another possibility, and that's for Mercenaries to be free from religious recruiting limits, and instead just be limited by geography.

Frankly, I haven't thought about it this way. Mainly because the goal of these suggestions is to give the muslims (Mulk and Iqta governments) and desert tribes (Qabila govt.)specific features which are authentic to that part of world, not more features. To put them on par with christians and pagans in terms of rich gameplay, not to make them better than others.
Also to my knowledge, most of muslim mercenaries were in fact slaves, convertites or renegades who (according to islamic laws and customs in that society) had very similar social status in society as slaves... and this is intended as abstraction, not as perfectly accurate simulation.

Mostly out of curiosity, what succession law would Qabila and Mulk governments use?

As for Mulk it shouldn't differ from Iqta, but TBH I haven't thought about this yet.
As for Qabila, there will be different succession in the position of leading clan/tribe and other tribes.
The clans in general will have a version of seniority succession - the new leader will be the one with highest prestige. I would call it - say - tribal seniority maybe?

If the succession takes place in leading clan of the Qabila confederation, there will be also a new election of the leading clan.
The new leader will be the clan with highest clan Asabiya at the moment. However, if no clan has its Asabiya above certain level (i.e. 50 or 60%), it could also happen that the Qabila confederation would disunite - that means there will be no leading clan at all and thus each clan will be politically independent.
In order to (re)unite the Qabila confederation into one political entity, one would need to use a decision - in order to get it, the clan needs to have little higher Asabiya than what is required for Qabila's unity maintenance (that means 60 or 70%) the confederation's Asabiya relatively high (at least 45%) and, as a critical requirement, agreement of other clans*. All who don't support the idea of unification (that mens they would become vasals of the new leading clan) would opose it in a joint war (declared by the strongest clan (in terms of Asabiya) who disagrees with all the other oponents joining him), while all supporters of the claimant will be on his side.
If such a war ends with victory, result will obviously be unification of Qabila confederation into political unit. In case of inconclusive result (white peace), the Qabila confederation would split into 2 Qabila confederations (each of them disunited, but in the smaller Qabila the new leader will have little higher chance to press his claim again**). If the claimant's side loses, status quo remains as it was before (the oposition acheives its goal to have things as they were).

* in order to agree with the claim, the clan needs to have relatively fine Asabiya (neither too low, nor too high, something between 30-50%) and good relations with the claimant.
** the insuccessfull claim/war, however, will lower Asabiya of all the clans in question.

PS: again, all the numbers here are just a matter of suggestion, particular figures would depend on how the mechanics would work in practise - having things in the level of ideas means I have no idea at what level will the Asabiya normally be