Could there be an 'anti' Caliph feature

[Imperator1993]

I was thinking of what new features could be in this game and I was thinking maybe there could be a situation where there are two Caliphs of the same branch of Islam such as the Caliphate of Cordoba opposing the Abbasids. It would work similiarly to the Anti-Pope feature were the 'Anti'-Caliph would rule over only over the realm he resides in. So what do you think could it be a possible feature?

 

[TheChronoMaster]

Any historical precedent for this, scholars of Islam? I never considered it, and I am not familiar enough with the history to say if there is.


(It's a neat idea though)

 

[arothuris]

There's basically nothing u would do as a caliph already, so what would an "anti-caliph" have at his disposal? I'm pretty upset as how the current caliph functions, so maybe we should enrich this role first?

 

[Dartheal]

Don't the two Caliphs sort of act as "anti" Caliphs to each other, what with the differing ideology of succession?

 

[Yazman]

Yes, there is a historical precedent. Abdul Rahman III formed the Caliphate of Cordoba and Iberia was operated as a caliphate for 100 years after that (until the Caliphate fell in the 1030s). This was done during a war with the Fatimids, who had their own Caliphate.

So there is definitely a historical precedent.

 

[Talq]

Yes, there is a historical precedent. Abdul Rahman III formed the Caliphate of Cordoba and Iberia was operated as a caliphate for 100 years after that (until the Caliphate fell in the 1030s). This was done during a war with the Fatimids, who had their own Caliphate.

So there is definitely a historical precedent.

These were all descendants of the Umayyad dynasty, who held the Caliphate prior to the Abassids - so more a case of incomplete civil war, rather than setting up an anti-caliph.

I'm not an expert on Islam, but most of what I've read suggests that it would be only possible if you were a heretic (at best). Being Caliph (outside of being fatamid or abassid at the start of the game) requires descent from Muhummed (shia) or the agreement of the islamic 'community' (sunni - in practice, not really, but basicly beyond the decision of a single ruler unless you happen to own almost all of islam in the game).

Neither caliph exerted any real authority during the CK timeframe (or after it). Personally, it probably would be best if CK reflected this rather than pretending they were Muslim popes.

 

[Yazman]

These were all descendants of the Umayyad dynasty, who held the Caliphate prior to the Abassids - so more a case of incomplete civil war, rather than setting up an anti-caliph.

I'm not an expert on Islam, but most of what I've read suggests that it would be only possible if you were a heretic (at best). Being Caliph (outside of being fatamid or abassid at the start of the game) requires descent from Muhummed (shia) or the agreement of the islamic 'community' (sunni - in practice, not really, but basicly beyond the decision of a single ruler unless you happen to own almost all of islam in the game).

Neither caliph exerted any real authority during the CK timeframe (or after it). Personally, it probably would be best if CK reflected this rather than pretending they were Muslim popes.

You can call it what you want, but it's really a matter of semantics - there was at least one period in history during the Cordoba Caliphate where there were two reigning Caliphs. Given this period went on for just over a century, it's hard to really call it a "civil war", especially given that the Andalusians drove off the Fatimids pretty early on.

 

[Ols]

Yeah, but they were Umayyads, they were Sayyids. If Anti-Caliphs are made possible, they should need to be Sayyids as well. Basically all that would mean is that you could choose between 3 different major houses for each caliphate or replace a bad caliph with a brother or an uncle.

 

[BlackBarook]

You can call it what you want, but it's really a matter of semantics - there was at least one period in history during the Cordoba Caliphate where there were two reigning Caliphs. Given this period went on for just over a century, it's hard to really call it a "civil war", especially given that the Andalusians drove off the Fatimids pretty early on.

It's not a matter of semantics, at least to Muslims. The Cordovan Caliphate was not considered a Caliphate in the eyes of the majority of Muslims and since it did not expand beyond Iberia, which held a small number of Muslim, then it doesn't count. It's like the Turks calling themselves Romans and their realm the Roman Empire. They're only lying to themselves.

Also the Caliphate and the Caliph can not be compared to the Pope or the Papal system both serve two different roles. The Caliph is a political and administrative role ensuring the laws are applied to all within the realm, and that people are not in need or want. The religious council acts to ensure the that Islamic law is established and respected and that religious minorities are given their rights and responsibilities within the Islamic Ummah.

It is strange to have the Caliph as the religious head of Islam. It's just weird. Muslims doesn't have some like a Church system that Christians do.

Yeah, but they were Umayyads, they were Sayyids. If Anti-Caliphs are made possible, they should need to be Sayyids as well. Basically all that would mean is that you could choose between 3 different major houses for each caliphate or replace a bad caliph with a brother or an uncle.

For a Shia, or most of them, than yes a Caliph must trace his bloodline from the Prophet's linage. However for Sunnies it is an irrelevant question. The Caliph should be the best of what the Islamic Ummah to offer. But due to the asinine behavior of human's the system was prevented into a Hereditary Monarchy from its envisioned Republican form.

 

[Jeltz]

Well there is also the Almohad Caliphate which i guess could be counted as "anti-caliphs". And I am pretty sure there has been many others who have claimed the be caliphs. How this would be implmented in the game I do not know.

 

[Yazman]

Yeah, but they were Umayyads, they were Sayyids. If Anti-Caliphs are made possible, they should need to be Sayyids as well. Basically all that would mean is that you could choose between 3 different major houses for each caliphate or replace a bad caliph with a brother or an uncle.

Caliphs do not necessarily need to be Sayyids. Only if they are Shia muslims.

It's not a matter of semantics, at least to Muslims. The Cordovan Caliphate was not considered a Caliphate in the eyes of the majority of Muslims and since it did not expand beyond Iberia, which held a small number of Muslim, then it doesn't count. It's like the Turks calling themselves Romans and their realm the Roman Empire. They're only lying to themselves.

It IS a matter of semantics. I was responding to TheChronoMaster who had asked if there was any historical precedent for an Islamic equivalent of an anti-papacy, and there was a rough equivalent.

The whole point of certain historical popes being considered "anti-popes" is that they, IN YOUR WORDS (paraphrased for christianity), were not considered popes in the eyes of the majority of Christians, and they did not expand beyond a certain geographical area.

The Cordoba Caliphate, and the Almohad Caliphate Jeltz mentioned (true, Jeltz), were much the same. In fact it's important for our poses here that Abdul Rahman III of Cordoba WASN'T recognised as the Caliph by the rest of the Islamic world. The people of Iberia did though, and that's enough to constitute something that could translate to an anti-papacy.

There are multiple examples of independent Caliphs historically, and I think this is really what the OP was looking at/wondering about. One could argue (quite convincingly) that Abdul Rahman III mainly used it to declare independence from the Fatimids. This isn't represented in CK2, but I'm not sure it really needs to be.

I'm not sure what point it would have though in-game. Although Paradox always seems to be much more creative than we forum peons, so who knows?

 

[arothuris]

I dun think there's excommunication for muslim, at least in game I dun see such option (or did I miss it the whole time? might check on it after this post). The only thing u would do as a Caliph is to call Jihads, which is not very useful since muslims have invasion CB already. I only call Jihads when I wanna form a kingdom but can't, like Andalusia which has a cultural requirement.

 

[Divi]

It's not a matter of semantics, at least to Muslims. The Cordovan Caliphate was not considered a Caliphate in the eyes of the majority of Muslims and since it did not expand beyond Iberia, which held a small number of Muslim, then it doesn't count. It's like the Turks calling themselves Romans and their realm the Roman Empire. They're only lying to themselves.

Your point would likely make more sense if you didn't pick an example that was wrong to begin with. Turkish muslims with persian court culture are no less roman than christian greeks with largely persian court culture (there was extremely little roman left in late Byzantium). At that point it was wholly a matter of what the empire called itself: both states officially considered themselves Rome. Rome, in the renaissance, is an ideal of empire, not a tangible reality (especially not after the 4th crusade destroying what's left of it).

As for multiple caliphates, I'd say having heretic caliphs might work to some extent, although not for most muslim sects (the Druzes considered one of the fatimid caliphs to be a prophet, and while they were considered a heresy later on in Fatimid egypt their caliphate would still be the shia caliphate) - that said it would be clunky to treat the almohads as a sunni heresy just so they can have their rival caliph. A sort of autocephaly with Grand Imams might work, as well, especially for some sects like the ismailis.

 

[Darkgamma]

Technically, the "fanatical christian greeks" were the actual Romans of the Roman Empire for the entirety of the game's timespan, up until 1453. It is so because the term "Roman" is a meta-concept - there was no actual Roman culture, no Roman language, no Roman people

 

[Divi]

Technically, the "fanatical christian greeks" were actual Romans of the Roman Empire for the entirety of the game's timespan, up until 1453. It is so because the term "Roman" is a meta-concept - there was no actual Roman culture, no Roman language, no Roman people

Except, you know, the city of Rome and its inhabitants, which restored and maintained the Roman republic until a couple of decades after game start from the fall of the Lombards, who still controlled the election of the pope as pontifex maximus until the creation of the college of Cardinals, and who could very well have restored the republic in full had the roman princes been less busy killing each other while plotting against the papacy.

Also 1204, otherwise every single roman successor state is Rome, including the HRE, Lombardy, the kingdom of Soissons, etc. 1453 is just a date that makes the russian church happy to pretend.

 

[Darkgamma]

And how are they the ethnical Roman people? Did they have their unique Roman culture, did they speak a certain special Roman language?
You might notice the "of the Roman Empire" genitive I attached if you look a bit closer.

 

[Divi]

And how are they the ethnical Roman people? Did they have their unique Roman culture, did they speak a certain special Roman language?
You might notice the "of the Roman Empire" genitive I attached if you look a bit closer.

Your first two questions are so profoundly ridiculous that I'm not sure whether someone can be that obtuse without trolling.

Yes, the population of Latium was the ethnical roman people, that's where latin comes from, they built the empire, their ethnonym is Roman, their main city is Rome. And they still spoke a latin-derived dialect called roman. If you're going to argue based on linguistics, then the true romans were the sardinians or the vlachs, since their languages maintained a hell of a lot more latin archaisms, and it wasn't greek, a foreign language to begin with. And if Roman is a meta-concept, then turks are no less roman than greeks, especially since neither people has anything to do with the original alliance of three latin tribes that was the original romans.

Also regarding grand imams, editing autocephaly (or making it moddable) so there could be muslim_autocephaly for great imams would be a nice touch. The ismailis would likely get it, maybe the ibadhis. Not sure for druzes.

 

[Darkgamma]

I am indeed arguing based on anthropology and linguistics. There never was a Roman ethnical people, the people who built the empire were the Latins. "Roman" as an adjective is used to refer to citizens of the empire of Rome, not some sort of fictive ethnicity and language. The language the Latins spoke was Latin, and the language you're referring to people like to call Italian.
Greeks were as Roman as any other inhabitant of the old empire, but even more so as the Byzantine Empire, actually the Eastern Roman Empire, was recognised as the successor to Rome (while they thought of themselves as actual Rome)

 

[Divi]

I am indeed arguing based on anthropology and linguistics. There never was a Roman ethnical people, the people who built the empire were the Latins. "Roman" as an adjective is used to refer to citizens of the empire of Rome, not some sort of fictive ethnicity and language. The language the Latins spoke was Latin, and the language you're referring to people like to call Italian.
Greeks were as Roman as any other inhabitant of the old empire, but even more so as the Byzantine Empire, actually the Eastern Roman Empire, was recognised as the successor to Rome (while they thought of themselves as actual Rome)

You're doing so very poorly, and to a sociolinguist on top of it. Rome is a latin city, Italy was a special region within the roman empire, and the idea of a unified italian language is a 18th-19th century construct. The roman dialect is, and was certainly at the time even moreso, an actual linguistic reality.

The Sultans of Rum also considered themselves a successor state. And Rome is still a city in Latium. Despite Justinian I's best efforts to destroy it. Christendom is most certainly not the arbiter of who is or was Rome, since the city was not christian most of its history at game start.

What about just making the K_almohad or E_almohad title caliph? It would just lack the religious authority of the real caliphate I guess, which probably defeats the OP's purpose.

 

[Darkgamma]

And you're doing even worse, with an insult with pity on top.
The "Italian group of languages" is made up of multiple dialects and it is presently a pluricentric southern Romance language. All the dialects in mainland Italy are part of a single branch of Romantic languages.
I know what Rome the city is, and I am referring to Rome the empire. You don't need to explain to me what Italy is TYVM. You are wrong about the time period of the consolidation of Italian into a language, though, as the first regulatory body formed in Florence in 1583.

The Sultans of Rum considered themselves the successors to Rome the empire, while Byzantium was considered by the wider European community to be the successor to Rome. It would be the same as if I claimed I am the president in stead of Joachim Gauck, while he's widely accepted - I might consider myself, but nobody else does.

You might be a sociolinguist, but I am on the other hand a conlinguist; even though that is of less worth than being a sociolinguist, you seem to be underestimating my ability.
Please, learn some history. There never was a Roman ethnicity. Your "Roman dialect" is a very shaky thing - of what is it a dialect? Of which language? Do you know what a language and what a dialect is?