Rapid Expansion of the Turkish (Ottoman) Empire Until 1536

[k_merse]

Another point is, as HRE was the continue of Western Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire was the continue of Eastern Roman Empire. IMO, this can be also use in your system.

So as they claimed at least... But this claim wasn't accepted by the Christians, so it wouldn't be a logical claim to make the alliances with Christian nations easier.

[Konstantinos XV]

The problem is that alliances in general are too cumbersome, unwieldy, demanding and inflexible. A system of treaties on the other hand? A defensive league, a <fixed term> non-aggression agreement, a coalition *vs someone in particular* (in which case you don't need stellar relations with the leader to join as long as you have a common enemy), an opportunity to band together "for this one war" might've been more suitable.

[CanOmer]

So as they claimed at least... But this claim wasn't accepted by the Christians, so it wouldn't be a logical claim to make the alliances with Christian nations easier.

This is not about alliances. I suggest to Zoloyata's system.

The claims was not accepted in both sides. For example Holy Roman Empire was a German kingdom according to OE. The Russian Empire was also declared itself true Roman Empire also. But HRE and OE didn't accept its claim too.

[Ivashanko]

Ottomans had long alliance with France which lasted more than a century. Ottos also had alliances with various protestant countries against the Habsburgs. Realpolitik is one thing, fooling the dumb masses with religion/ideology is something else. Religion was important since you could use it to grab land from "infidels", but it did not stop Venice for example from forming alliances with Akkoyunlus against Ottos or Karamans.

You really don't know anything about history if you think ideology/religion was simply to 'fool the dumb masses'.

[CanOmer]

There were Muslim-Christian royal marriages also.

[Zolotaya]

Crimean Khanate, Golden Horde, Kazan, Persia, Granada (and other historical Muslim Iberian minors) frequently entered into alliances with christian neighbors or their christian enemies. To limit such feature only for Ottomans would be wrong.

Nontraditional alliances could be dependent on leader's (or his adviser's) diplomatic skill (who seeks alliance) and probably also some general religious fervor as it was already mentioned.

Obviously such alliances wouldn't be long lasting.

And this is why the Ottoman experience would not fit in your envisioned mechanics.

1st: Ottoman alliances lasted a very long time. The Ottoman-PLC alliance lasted centuries - and it was not reliant on the leaders themselves, nor their religious fervor.

2nd: The system I am talking about would be applicable to more then just the Ottomans themselves.

3rd: The Khanates and Hordes you reference have systems already for them... the Nomad/Tribal systems as devised by Jun allow for alliances with Christians or Muslims ...

There are many aspects of the Ottoman society that differentiate it from the "standards" and thus they really do deserve their own developed systems; this will not be limited only to the Ottoman country itself, but it should enrich the experience of playing such a country much more then exists today.

[Zolotaya]

There were Muslim-Christian royal marriages also.

Indeed - the royal marriage mechanism was one which had made it as far as a design proposal prior to being put on hold for release.

Aspects of the Sultanate of Women and others, as you well know, influence the entire Ottoman ruling structure... from inheritance to actual exercising of governing.

As far as the need of the Ottomans to pursue the "Rum" legitimacy ... that would be a part of the system, but more of a covert aspect, not overt (imo).

[Coincollecter]

The problem is that alliances in general are too cumbersome, unwieldy, demanding and inflexible. A system of treaties on the other hand? A defensive league, a <fixed term> non-aggression agreement, a coalition *vs someone in particular* (in which case you don't need stellar relations with the leader to join as long as you have a common enemy), an opportunity to band together "for this one war" might've been more suitable.

I couldn´t agree more! This is exactly what I was missing in EU3 and Magna Mundi the Mod. Creating complex networks of alliances, leagues, treaties, inofficial "agreements" and stuff like this is what makes diplomacy so complex in the real world! I would love to see this ingame and can think of lots of stuff that could be connected to it. Like sending spies to ennemies courts to uncover their "agreements" with other or using your own diplomats to infere in other countries treaties by imposing diplomatic pressure on the second country involved. And then you could connect the entire thing to the Sphere of Influence model and vassal relationships...

[Descri]

I couldn´t agree more! This is exactly what I was missing in EU3 and Magna Mundi the Mod. Creating complex networks of alliances, leagues, treaties, inofficial "agreements" and stuff like this is what makes diplomacy so complex in the real world! I would love to see this ingame and can think of lots of stuff that could be connected to it. Like sending spies to ennemies courts to uncover their "agreements" with other or using your own diplomats to infere in other countries treaties by imposing diplomatic pressure on the second country involved. And then you could connect the entire thing to the Sphere of Influence model and vassal relationships...

Sounds amazing, but also incredibly ambitious. I would love to see it one day, but I have to wonder if it can be done at all.

[k_merse]

Everything can be done. With a few hundred (or thousand) hours of coding...

[rybka]

And this is why the Ottoman experience would not fit in your envisioned mechanics.

1st: Ottoman alliances lasted a very long time. The Ottoman-PLC alliance lasted centuries - and it was not reliant on the leaders themselves, nor their religious fervor.

Ottoman-PLC alliance lasted centuries? This is something new, never heard of this Maybe you meant Ottoman-French?

[Zolotaya]

Ottoman-PLC alliance lasted centuries? This is something new, never heard of this Maybe you meant Ottoman-French?

No. I meant what I said.

[thrashing mad]

Yeah, it was more like a non-agression pact than an alliance.

[Zolotaya]

Yeah, it was more like a non-agression pact than an alliance.

Because it dealt with things like the slave trade and other economic matters, I consider it an alliance - but non-aggression describes the military aspect towards each-other; I agree with you there.

[demanvanwezel]

This would not work to recreate the Ottoman historical experience. The Ottoman society was very fervent (ie sponsoring and building many world famous mosques) at the same time that it was very involved with countries of other religions.

As I stated before, I am of the belief that the Ottomans deserve a system of their own - and an extraordinary ability to pursue alliances with christian states would be a part of this.

Is there some other mechanic which regulates the tolerance of other religions then?

because I can't imagine alliances with heathens when there is a preacher shouting at every streetcorner about the evils of infidels

so while the ottomans were maybe high fervour, they had high tolerance of christians and that would make it easier to make alliances (and vica-versa, I don't think an alliance between spain and the ottomans would have been feasible )

[thrashing mad]

Is there some other mechanic which regulates the tolerance of other religions then?

because I can't imagine alliances with heathens when there is a preacher shouting at every streetcorner about the evils of infidels

so while the ottomans were maybe high fervour, they had high tolerance of christians and that would make it easier to make alliances (and vica-versa, I don't think an alliance between spain and the ottomans would have been feasible )

Muslims were tolerated in PLC, where for example Lipka Tatars were free settle, build mosques or join nobility, so yeah - it's not a bad idea to have tolerant national ideas/policies affecting diplomacy with heathens.

[CanOmer]

because I can't imagine alliances with heathens when there is a preacher shouting at every streetcorner about the evils of infidels

I don't know how did you get this information but in Ottoman society, districts were divided by millets. Each millet has its own traditions in their own closed districts. The Empire ruled societies as compartments to prevent possible conflicts between different millets. In the imperial courts there were judges of every religion.

[k_merse]

Yes, and the vassals or the people in the millets where so much chioce wether they wanted to be part of the OE or not. Ok, the Empire somewhat tolerated the christian religions but they still built their own temples everywhere.

[CanOmer]

Mosques were one of the primary buildings of the imperial culture. Many cities grew around them and mostly built in muslim lands. They were temples, but they were also a strong part of imperial cult and its authority with another buildings of the imperial architecture.

[Zolotaya]

The Ottoman Empire was a multifaceted society that grew from the various institutions and cultures of all the peoples it encompassed. It had influences from the steppes, from the imperial Byzantine government, from the ancient and proud cultures of Persia and Egypt - and yes, even from the Catholic Christians it encompassed into its empire. All societies will attempt to spread its authority and morality in all areas where they rule; the Ottomans were no exception.

One of the ways the Ottoman society grew was to incorporate local ruling elites into its governance - and the Ottomans often fully accepted those elites into their culture. However, just as any modern state does today, they had a vested interest to "encourage" the growth and healthy spread of the main pillars of that society. Mosques were (and are) a central hub of society and their spread was essential for that society to thrive.

All societies pursue this and the Ottomans are no different than any other.