Recently there has been number of threads (from the latest this or this but also many more) where people criticize that Cristian princes or Merchant republics way too often and way too soon keep conquering North Africa, hold the region and turn it Catholic... and at the same time that the muslim empires such as Abbasids and Umayyads in the early bookmarks are way too powerfull.
There were few general suggestions how this could be fixed:
- add more sea provinces between North Africa and Europe to prevent the expansion
- add more conditions for overseas Holy wars (such as higher piety cost or technology requirements - military organization or shipbuilding)
- overhaul the map in few aspects 1) make it actually look like somebody gave it some effort, and not just copied that extremely neglected map from CK2, which not only does not describe the actual medieval North Africa, but is awfull to be looked at.. 2) divide those unrealistic and extremely large coastal duchies
3) add more depth to those provinces to increase strength of North African states and give them chance to fight back when an invasion happens (as it historicaly did).
- change the succession laws of muslim states
At the current state of the game and these are probably almost the only and most effective changes possible /since we can't expect any deep change of the inside game mechanics.
However, do we really know what causes muslims to be overpowered and ahistoricaly weak at the same time?
Let's compare what we know about history and how does CK2 represent it, so we can see where is the problem:
1) The map represents the muslim world so poorly that you can hardly imagine it being worse. Majority of the provinces does not reflect real distribution of population and power in Africa, Middle East and Central Asia. Some areas are heavily overpowered while others are terribly underrepresented. And above all the provinces's shapes simply convince you that there was minimal or zero effort into make it look not only historically accurate, but even basic esthetics was neglected (the terrible cubic or rectangular shapes).
And now some data
- The game does not have population, but the general agreement is that the holdings and provinces are there to represent somehow the population and power of the region. So let's compare estimated population in some parts of the map with number of provinces and holdings in those provinces to see which of them and how over- or under-powered they are compared to each other.
Population /historical estimates:
Comparison: historical population per holding and/or province:
In brief: looking at some of CK2 regions in both Europe and Middle East and sorting them from the most overpowered to the least overpowered in terms of manpower, this is what we get for 867:
Palestine (by far the most OP) > Italy > Bohemia > North Iberia > Maghreb > Greece+Bulgaria > France > South Iberia > Iraq > Syria > Egypt > Anatolia
Then how comes that we have the rulers of the least OP regions Anatolia, Syria+Iraq, Egypt and South Iberia being the ones doing the biggest blobbing, while relatively ok Maghreb is being overrun by relatively ok France? (OTOH, this analysis nicely explain why Italy -which is furthemore much larger - can overrun Maghreb so easily)
2) We will get closer to the answer if we look little deeper under the surface and check the structure of Maghreb.
- in CK2 vanilla, every single duchy is coastal, and except one of them all can be accessed from Mediterrean coast, which is crucial for possible Catholic Holy wars.
- then if we look at the coastal provinces, we can see that 38% of Maghrebi provinces have access to Mediterrean sea (if we count also Atlantic coast, we get 52%), but they hold almost half of all holdings in 867 and 2/5 of all potential holdings. That means losing these coastal provinces means very large hit in manpower.
- as said, none of the 7 duchies is inland and they're quite large - losing one duchy then in fact means losing 1/7 of region's provinces and power (in fact it is more since the Moroccan provinces are extremely weak in 867 start).
Does this correspond with medieval reality of Maghreb?
Economic, military and political power of medieval Maghreb was not on the coast, easily accessible to Christian raiders, but inland. Thus, when Christians took a city, which they sometimes did, it was no big harm to the political, and military power of Maghrebi dynasties.
Therefore if the map is refrawn to reflect this and to put the main centers of power into "protected" inland, the chance of Maghrebi dynasties to fight back Catholic invasion would be much higher and more accurate.
This step, however, would not solve our problem with the Levant, Egypt or Spain as centers of muslim blobbing. For that we need to take a look at the structure of political and military power of Islamic dynasties compared to feudal Catholic Europeans.
3) military power and population in islamic world.
Despite Andalusia was the most populous part of Islamic west, the military power of the region lied elswhere - it was the Berber dynasties from relatively sparsely populated Maghreb, who were the major military force in the region. Why is that?
Because in muslim world, the military power was far less dependent on population and often the less a region was developed and populous, the more it was martialy powerfull. That is why the feudal system used for CK2 muslims fails so badly and paradoxingly the regions which are the most overpowered in their population are the weakest, while the ones which seem to be most disadvantaged are in fact the most powerfull.
So in order to represent muslim military power in CK2, the Iqta government should be reworked so that it:
- does heavily favour vasal taxes over vasal levies (in fact the balanced taxes/levies should be the last possible with no possibility to turn it in favour ov levies).
- the tax income should be generaly reduced for muslims or the mercenaries/slave armies should not be vasalized (and thus very cheap). IMHO a combination of both tax reduction and increased proce of vasalized mercenaries might be the most ballanced option. Note that Byzantine military system was in this respect much closer to muslims than to Western feudalism.
Also tribal government of desert cultures (Bedouin, Berber) should be reworked so that
- it provides remarkably higher military power from relatively small number of tribal settlements
- this kind of military power, however should be limited to TRIBAL settlements and only in some terrains, namely deserts and arid mountains.
- the feudalization of these desert tribes should last longer and should not be as desired as it is now
- this kind of militery power should be available only to some cultures. If the Catholic feudal Europeans rule over the desert, it should be militarily and economicaly worthless.
So in brief, to the initial list of suggested changes, and desperately necessary map overhaul of the region, I would add 2 more suggestions:
- improve tribalism of certain cultures so they would better represent the real military power of muslim tribes
- edit iqta government so it provides less vasal military levies, but instead gives the ruler more money.. and give muslims few more mercenary bands to hire.
There were few general suggestions how this could be fixed:
- add more sea provinces between North Africa and Europe to prevent the expansion
- add more conditions for overseas Holy wars (such as higher piety cost or technology requirements - military organization or shipbuilding)
- overhaul the map in few aspects 1) make it actually look like somebody gave it some effort, and not just copied that extremely neglected map from CK2, which not only does not describe the actual medieval North Africa, but is awfull to be looked at.. 2) divide those unrealistic and extremely large coastal duchies
3) add more depth to those provinces to increase strength of North African states and give them chance to fight back when an invasion happens (as it historicaly did).
- change the succession laws of muslim states
At the current state of the game and these are probably almost the only and most effective changes possible /since we can't expect any deep change of the inside game mechanics.
However, do we really know what causes muslims to be overpowered and ahistoricaly weak at the same time?
Let's compare what we know about history and how does CK2 represent it, so we can see where is the problem:
1) The map represents the muslim world so poorly that you can hardly imagine it being worse. Majority of the provinces does not reflect real distribution of population and power in Africa, Middle East and Central Asia. Some areas are heavily overpowered while others are terribly underrepresented. And above all the provinces's shapes simply convince you that there was minimal or zero effort into make it look not only historically accurate, but even basic esthetics was neglected (the terrible cubic or rectangular shapes).
And now some data
- The game does not have population, but the general agreement is that the holdings and provinces are there to represent somehow the population and power of the region. So let's compare estimated population in some parts of the map with number of provinces and holdings in those provinces to see which of them and how over- or under-powered they are compared to each other.
Population /historical estimates:
Maghreb - estimated population 5 million in early 11th century, after 1055 steep decline then stagnation with slow rise in some areas, in other slow decline to some 3,8 millions in 1500
Egypt - in 8th century some 3 millions, around 1000AD - some 5 millions and then decline to cca 4 millions
Syria+Palestine - some 3-4 millions+0,5 in Palestine in 8th century*, some 1,5-2,7+0,5 around 1000AD and 4+0,5 in circa the late 12th century
all these may be underestimated, because they count with relatively low city populations, which might add some additional 1/2m to each Egypt and Syria and some 300K to Maghreb
Iberia is said to have circa 7 millions in the 9th century, around 9 millions in 1000AD, some 8 millions in later 11th century and then to decrease to 6 in 1300 and then rise to 8,5 in 1500
For France estimates are cca 7 millions in 850, 9 millions around 1000AD, 16 millions in mid 13th century to 18+ just before the Black death.
Italy had roughly some 3,5-4 millions in 9th century, 5-5,8 millions in 1000AD and peaked around 12.5 millions before the Black death.
Egypt - in 8th century some 3 millions, around 1000AD - some 5 millions and then decline to cca 4 millions
Syria+Palestine - some 3-4 millions+0,5 in Palestine in 8th century*, some 1,5-2,7+0,5 around 1000AD and 4+0,5 in circa the late 12th century
all these may be underestimated, because they count with relatively low city populations, which might add some additional 1/2m to each Egypt and Syria and some 300K to Maghreb
Iberia is said to have circa 7 millions in the 9th century, around 9 millions in 1000AD, some 8 millions in later 11th century and then to decrease to 6 in 1300 and then rise to 8,5 in 1500
For France estimates are cca 7 millions in 850, 9 millions around 1000AD, 16 millions in mid 13th century to 18+ just before the Black death.
Italy had roughly some 3,5-4 millions in 9th century, 5-5,8 millions in 1000AD and peaked around 12.5 millions before the Black death.
Comparison: historical population per holding and/or province:
Then compare it with number of holdings (either maximal potential and in certain bookmarks) :
- France has 276 potential holdings, 178 of them built in 867 - that is some 65K per potential holding in max and 39K in 867. 310/120K per province
- Italy has 236 potential holdings, 167 of them built in 867 - that is some 53K per potential holding, 21K in 867. Per province it's 240/67K.
- Iberia has 260 potential holdings 195 built in 867 - that is 34K per potential holding and 35K in 867. 147/115K per province
- North Africa: 146 potential, 119 in 867. That is 34K per potential and cca 33K in 867. 147/117K per province
- Syria+Palestine*: 177 potential and 127 in 867. That is 28K per potential and 31K in 867. 113/90K per province
- Syria itself: 101 potential and 72 holdings in 867, in 24 provinces. That is 44K per potential and 45K in 867. 187/137K per province.
- Egypt: 77 potential and 58 holdings in 867, in 18 provinces. That is 71K per potential 68K in 867. 305/222K per province.
* let's take these 2 together - despite Syria had about 80% of their shared population, in CK2 Palestine has almost as many holdings as Syria. That is of course because if they were realistic, the Crusader KoJ would have no chance of survival.
- France has 276 potential holdings, 178 of them built in 867 - that is some 65K per potential holding in max and 39K in 867. 310/120K per province
- Italy has 236 potential holdings, 167 of them built in 867 - that is some 53K per potential holding, 21K in 867. Per province it's 240/67K.
- Iberia has 260 potential holdings 195 built in 867 - that is 34K per potential holding and 35K in 867. 147/115K per province
- North Africa: 146 potential, 119 in 867. That is 34K per potential and cca 33K in 867. 147/117K per province
- Syria+Palestine*: 177 potential and 127 in 867. That is 28K per potential and 31K in 867. 113/90K per province
- Syria itself: 101 potential and 72 holdings in 867, in 24 provinces. That is 44K per potential and 45K in 867. 187/137K per province.
- Egypt: 77 potential and 58 holdings in 867, in 18 provinces. That is 71K per potential 68K in 867. 305/222K per province.
* let's take these 2 together - despite Syria had about 80% of their shared population, in CK2 Palestine has almost as many holdings as Syria. That is of course because if they were realistic, the Crusader KoJ would have no chance of survival.
Palestine (by far the most OP) > Italy > Bohemia > North Iberia > Maghreb > Greece+Bulgaria > France > South Iberia > Iraq > Syria > Egypt > Anatolia
Then how comes that we have the rulers of the least OP regions Anatolia, Syria+Iraq, Egypt and South Iberia being the ones doing the biggest blobbing, while relatively ok Maghreb is being overrun by relatively ok France? (OTOH, this analysis nicely explain why Italy -which is furthemore much larger - can overrun Maghreb so easily)
2) We will get closer to the answer if we look little deeper under the surface and check the structure of Maghreb.
- in CK2 vanilla, every single duchy is coastal, and except one of them all can be accessed from Mediterrean coast, which is crucial for possible Catholic Holy wars.
- then if we look at the coastal provinces, we can see that 38% of Maghrebi provinces have access to Mediterrean sea (if we count also Atlantic coast, we get 52%), but they hold almost half of all holdings in 867 and 2/5 of all potential holdings. That means losing these coastal provinces means very large hit in manpower.
- as said, none of the 7 duchies is inland and they're quite large - losing one duchy then in fact means losing 1/7 of region's provinces and power (in fact it is more since the Moroccan provinces are extremely weak in 867 start).
Does this correspond with medieval reality of Maghreb?
Partialy yes. Many of the big cities were on the coast. But until 1060's, only one of the many local capitals was a coastal city (Fatimid Mahdia), and even later only 2-3 dynasties rezided on the coast. Vast majority of local capitals was inland. Why? Because the political and military power lied there. Even the richest merchant cities of the time were not from Alger, Oran or Tunis, but from Sijilmasa, Marrakech, Fes, Tahert, Tilimsan or Kairouan.
Economic, military and political power of medieval Maghreb was not on the coast, easily accessible to Christian raiders, but inland. Thus, when Christians took a city, which they sometimes did, it was no big harm to the political, and military power of Maghrebi dynasties.
Therefore if the map is refrawn to reflect this and to put the main centers of power into "protected" inland, the chance of Maghrebi dynasties to fight back Catholic invasion would be much higher and more accurate.
There is something similar in Egypt. In general it is among the most underrated regions, but in fact, Egypt is and always was 2 countries in 1 - the Delta and the narrow stripe around the Nile, which was extremely populous and rich, but with not much military power, and the sparsely populated desert outskirts with oases and nomad population, which sometimes provided military power. The same applies to Syria, Iraq and in fact the entire Middle East. The provinces in fertile land should be relatively small and extremely denesely populated with holdings. Around them there should be tribal provinces with only a few, but militarily powerfull holdings, and then the desert. But for instance in Maghreb, the inhabited desert (or semi-desert) area covered with provinces should be much deeper than it is now.
This step, however, would not solve our problem with the Levant, Egypt or Spain as centers of muslim blobbing. For that we need to take a look at the structure of political and military power of Islamic dynasties compared to feudal Catholic Europeans.
3) military power and population in islamic world.
Despite Andalusia was the most populous part of Islamic west, the military power of the region lied elswhere - it was the Berber dynasties from relatively sparsely populated Maghreb, who were the major military force in the region. Why is that?
Because in muslim world, the military power was far less dependent on population and often the less a region was developed and populous, the more it was martialy powerfull. That is why the feudal system used for CK2 muslims fails so badly and paradoxingly the regions which are the most overpowered in their population are the weakest, while the ones which seem to be most disadvantaged are in fact the most powerfull.
To find explanation, we need to understand the nature of military power of various muslim states. The Umayyads of Spain, Abbasids of Iraq and Fatimids of Egypt used their economic power only to get financial revenue. They did never raised their army from local population, but instead used standing armies - slave soldiers, which could be represented either as mercenaries or retinues.
In CK2 some of them do so (to compensate their land being de facto so heavily underrated), and their military power is based on mercenaries (Mamluks of Egypt, Ghilman of Iraq/Persia) That would be ok, if these armies were not supported by quite massive vasal and demesne levies.
OTOH the dynasties like Almoravids, Almohads, early Fatimids, Idrisids, the Hilalian Arabs (in CK2 Riyahdids and Suleimids) were tribal states whose military was based on tribal army and who never really became feudal, and also never used even the muslim fief system (iqta). Their military powerbase were relatively sparsey populated semi-desert or mountainious tribal areas, where large percentage of population was martialy skilled.
In CK2 some of them do so (to compensate their land being de facto so heavily underrated), and their military power is based on mercenaries (Mamluks of Egypt, Ghilman of Iraq/Persia) That would be ok, if these armies were not supported by quite massive vasal and demesne levies.
OTOH the dynasties like Almoravids, Almohads, early Fatimids, Idrisids, the Hilalian Arabs (in CK2 Riyahdids and Suleimids) were tribal states whose military was based on tribal army and who never really became feudal, and also never used even the muslim fief system (iqta). Their military powerbase were relatively sparsey populated semi-desert or mountainious tribal areas, where large percentage of population was martialy skilled.
So in order to represent muslim military power in CK2, the Iqta government should be reworked so that it:
- does heavily favour vasal taxes over vasal levies (in fact the balanced taxes/levies should be the last possible with no possibility to turn it in favour ov levies).
- the tax income should be generaly reduced for muslims or the mercenaries/slave armies should not be vasalized (and thus very cheap). IMHO a combination of both tax reduction and increased proce of vasalized mercenaries might be the most ballanced option. Note that Byzantine military system was in this respect much closer to muslims than to Western feudalism.
Also tribal government of desert cultures (Bedouin, Berber) should be reworked so that
- it provides remarkably higher military power from relatively small number of tribal settlements
- this kind of military power, however should be limited to TRIBAL settlements and only in some terrains, namely deserts and arid mountains.
- the feudalization of these desert tribes should last longer and should not be as desired as it is now
- this kind of militery power should be available only to some cultures. If the Catholic feudal Europeans rule over the desert, it should be militarily and economicaly worthless.
So in brief, to the initial list of suggested changes, and desperately necessary map overhaul of the region, I would add 2 more suggestions:
- improve tribalism of certain cultures so they would better represent the real military power of muslim tribes
- edit iqta government so it provides less vasal military levies, but instead gives the ruler more money.. and give muslims few more mercenary bands to hire.
Last edited:
- 24
- 15
- 2