Conversions

[unmerged(16363)]

Within the time period of 1066 - 1453, the muslim faiths (both sunni and shiite) have grown. I'd like to know how would it be handled... i.e., will the muslim-nations (IIRC not playable) send missionaries, force-convert...? And the opposite, can we convert back people to the true faith?

 

[Havard]

Hopefully the game can model conversions taking place among people ruled by a different religion (e.g. North African Christians -> Muslims, Syrian Christians -> Muslims and also Muslim Spaniards -> Charistian)...

 

[unmerged(7537)]

Yes, and it would be nice if you'd be able to speed up conversions by installing new bishoprics (sp?) and building monasteries, like the HRE did in Eastern Europe.

 

[unmerged(16363)]

Or even new religious orders!

 

[unmerged(11633)]

Well, there's an old Albanian saying-

"Where leads the sword, there follows religion"

 

[Judge]

Originally posted by Gjerg Kastrioti
Well, there's an old Albanian saying-

"Where leads the sword, there follows religion"

Sounds like "Or just by whacking them" to me

 

[Ebusitanus]

To speak about the Iberian experience along its "Reconquista" you would see how a very easy choice was given to the conquered civilian population (if there was any left) or inmediate conversion or outright expulsion across the new border. In very few instances (specialitzed labor) were the muslims allowed to remain in the newly taken lands and christian "colonists" came shortly after to take over where the true muslims had left.
In the Iberian case since most of the rural population was composed by Muladies (Hispano-Roman Muslims) the conversion went ethnically easier than in the major towns where the cosmopolitan reality of Berbers, Arabs, Iberians and Slavs had taken more root.

 

[Earl Uhtred]

I wonder if one system can encompass both the HRE expanding Christianity and German settlement in their borderlands and the Reconquista.

 

[unmerged(8915)]

Originally posted by Ebusitanus
To speak about the Iberian experience along its "Reconquista" you would see how a very easy choice was given to the conquered civilian population (if there was any left) or inmediate conversion or outright expulsion across the new border. In very few instances (specialitzed labor) were the muslims allowed to remain in the newly taken lands and christian "colonists" came shortly after to take over where the true muslims had left.
In the Iberian case since most of the rural population was composed by Muladies (Hispano-Roman Muslims) the conversion went ethnically easier than in the major towns where the cosmopolitan reality of Berbers, Arabs, Iberians and Slavs had taken more root.

Slavs in medieval Spain? wow do you have any more info?

 

[Ebusitanus]

Originally posted by Ladislav
Slavs in medieval Spain? wow do you have any more info?

Much like during the Visigoth rule in Iberia, the Hispano-Roman population during the Muslim era remained mostly as the lower class society although it was the bulk (Over 95%) of the Islamic kingdoms in Iberia. The ruling classes in Muslim Iberia were composed mostly of Arabs, Berbers and Slavs. It could be said that like in Visigothic Iberia the majority of the population were servants while the Visigoths themselves were the specialitzed warriors. This state of afairs was taken over by the muslims. The bulk of the population worked the fields or were serfs while the military elites managed to overthrow each other for political power. In the begining the invading armies were formed by Arabs and Berbers and these were the ethnic groups that ruled the land (together with the Jews who had been most eager to see the Visigoth rule terminated).
Contrary to popular belief, ethnic infighting was pretty common during the Muslim era, Berbers and Arabs had no few conflicts as to who was to rule whom. The Arabs, who were even a minority compared to the Berbers did everything posible as to gather more adept troops and palace servants. First by bringing in Syrian contingents and then even Slavs from the far east. Those troops proved to be more reliable when it came upon holding these Arabs in power against the Beber factions.
With the destruction of the Cordobese Caliphate in 1031 and the splintering of this land in a myriad of smaller "taifa Kingdoms", all these ethnic groups sought to work for themselves. The Berbers ruled their share of Kingdoms while the Arabs had theirs. Amongst the winners of this splitting up of the Caliphate you could find these Slavs who for a good century ruled most of the eastern coast Taifas as their overlords.

 

[unmerged(15867)]

Originally posted by Ladislav
Slavs in medieval Spain? wow do you have any more info?

Of course. Saqaliba (Slavs) were used as soldiers, mercenaries, they were slaves etc... They had great influence and were acking each other. IIRC few of muslim states had as rulers persons of Slavic ancestry. Slavic guards in Maghred IIRC also founded short-lived own state after revolt, but cant remember any details.

You dont hear much about that, because in official ideology Slavs are peacuful, calm people. And nobody can really be proud of their history. I mean, you hear about every friggin Viking if he managed to became guard in some desolate place, because VKings had place in official ideology of German racial superiority, and because later at least four states are recognizeing their history as their own.


And, anyway, since "Saqaliba" were mostly slaves, there is nothing that much to be proud of ) And some Saqalibas were also other northern European slaves.

 

[Ebusitanus]

I really do not know where you got all that brainstorming about this "conspiracy" to silence Slav contributions to world history compared to the Vikings.

Slavs were NOT slaves per sé in Muslim Iberia, they were mostly brought as troops and in time took up very powerful positions in the Caliphate as reliable people against the Berber influence in the power game. When the Caliphate broke up, Slavs gained power as independent "Kings" in many east coast Iberian "Taifa Kingdoms". I would say that there is much to be proud of actually.

 

[unmerged(15867)]

Originally posted by Ebusitanus
I really do not know where you got all that brainstorming about this "conspiracy" to silence Slav contributions to world history compared to the Vikings.

You don't like world conspiracies ?

But seriously, not talking about conspiracy. I put very valid reasons why you heard a lot about Vikings, and not so many about Slavs. Similar reasons are why you don't hrea a lot about other tribes with interesting history, but with none to care about. Vikings are part of history of many nations, while Saqalibas are part of many other which are not part of interest for main westerners, except for Spaniards.

Slavs were NOT slaves per sé in Muslim Iberia, they were mostly brought as troops and in time took up very powerful positions in the Caliphate as reliable people against the Berber influence in the power game. When the Caliphate broke up, Slavs gained power as independent "Kings" in many east coast Iberian "Taifa Kingdoms". I would say that there is much to be proud of actually.

I've read (in English) that they were slaves sold to Muslims by Germans who get them in victorious wars against Wends. In Polish also i've read few articles stating that they mostly were originally slaves, even if sometimes only formal.

 

[unmerged(15867)]

IUhm, i just realised that I could be misunderstood. By "Official Ideology" i mean official SLAVIC ideology. Slavic historians and book-writers usually put Slavonics as peacefull people, as contrasted to barbarians concentrating on raping sheeps, burning down villages and plundering cities (Germanics).

And by "nobody can be proud" i mean that there is no nation which can put Saqalibas into their national mythology. Vikings can be part of mythology of Swedes, Danes, heck even English or whatever, but who can be proud of those Saqalibas? Poles? Czechs? Noone "can be produ of them" means none can consider them part of their sacre national heritage.

 

[Ebusitanus]

Oh, I know what you mean perfectly. Its quite a constant to see history displayed mostly through the eyes of those who are actually most interested in it. Iberia is a perfect example for this on how much of the very intense historical events that came about on these lands are forgotten by the international writers. Per example see how Charles Martel is basically the most shinning person to represent the Islamic invasion through South Europe, hunderds of years of fighting that took Rome to subdue Iberia is constantly forgoten for more national interesting episodes like Caesar´s Gallic wars or Claudius´Britannia conquest which took place in a few years in comparaison. Sure thing is that history is written and distributed internationally by those who have the "power" to culturaly influence others. So, its just not Spain´s or the Slavs´time and thus we get left aside.

I remember when EU2 just came out how hard the Spanish player base had to fight to get the most basic concepts fixed along many parches (we got them mostly all) like province names, leader names, wrong cultures, wrong national shields, etc...There is no malice behind it but those mistakes have to get fixed for everyone´s closer apreciation of what really happened in those lands. Thus I invite you to contribute your knowledge about the east as much as possible too..Its good for everybody.

 

[Conrad]

It's right. If the Saqalibas had been Scandinavians they would probably have been heard of. Even the Americans seem to have made them part of their mythology (the Thirteenth warrior, Thor the superhero, Leif Eriksson, etc.).

It is true that Slavs are generally understood as peaceful whereas Germanics are understood as war-like, just as Romance peoples are understood as more civilised. I guess these stereotypes have their advantages, even though they are brutal simplifications.

Where can I learn more about these Iberian Slavs?

 

[unmerged(15867)]

Originally posted by Conrad
Where can I learn more about these Iberian Slavs?

Enter "Saqaliba" into google. If you know Polish you will have two quite nice articles. Most articles in English are about "13th warrior". But still when you digg through this you can find few interesting facts. I don;t know Spanish enough to know whether SPanish articles are of any use, and German seem to be also about 13th warrior

 

[unmerged(15867)]

Originally posted by Ebusitanus
Per example see how Charles Martel is basically the most shinning person to represent the Islamic invasion through South

"El Cid" was mandatory lecture in my literature lessons in school. Reconquista was one of main topics in history lessons used also as a toll to explain why Spanish where so succesful in building colonial empire.

 

[Conrad]

Szopen76 wrote:
____________________________________________
Enter "Saqaliba" into google. If you know Polish you will have two quite nice articles. Most articles in English are about "13th warrior".
_____________________________________________

Yes, true! Ain't that a coincidence!

Thanks!

Unfortunately I only read a little Russian

 

[unmerged(8915)]

most interesting. would anyone care to give me the synopsis of that long polish article, szopen?