HttT: Understanding the Mamluks.

[Easy Max]

I want to say this upfront: I'm not necessarily disagreeing with anything... I'd just like a little context to go along with the game I'm interested in playing.

Particularly, I'm looking at the Mamluks, and trying to understand why they deserve the "Tribal Depotism" form of government. The new Tribalism events and situations are all very neat, but I'm wondering if they dont guide the mamluks into being more aggressive/unstable than is historically accurate (again, this is from a vague sense of knowledge of the history of the region, although I am more well versed on the Crusades, which deal with the emergence of the Mamluks in the first place. I'd welcome any thoughts on the matter as to why it makes sense that they're tribal, or doesnt make sense).


Thanks!


P.S -- I'm *loving* the new way that CB's work. Makes warfare a *lot* more organic and interesting (like fighting a 2 year war with the ottomans just to show 'em that they shouldnt mess around in my neck of the woods!)

 

[Trin Tragula]

The state was certainly unstable but by no means a horde, it was built up around the control of the indo-european trade and should probably be a trader nation (I've modded national trade policy as their first NI, fits a lot better than the generic conscription NI that all muslims get).

 

[Easy Max]

Well... I was giving the NI concept some thought as well, and was prepared to suggest that we give them the NI for increased Army Tradition from battles. My rationale for this choice is because their victory over the Mongols at the battle of Ayn Jalut(mid 1200s) was *immensely* important to their spiritual and political prestige.

 

[BritNavFan]

I always thought they were given a "tribal" government in order to make it likely (back in the days when the main effect of "tribal" governments was to slow your rate of technological advance down) that they would lose to the Ottomans.

Yes, they had a lot of infighting... but so did the Ottomans, so did the English (Wars of the Roses), etc. etc. etc. Really, most 15th-century governments should have a chance of succession disputes. I don't think that should make them "tribal".

I'd guess "despotic monarchy" for a government (although it's hard to imagine anyone "inheriting" them by royal marriage! but that's a general problem with non-European monarchies), and I was going for "military drill" as their first NI, as they emphasized that a lot, and something commercial as their second.

 

[phillosopher]

I would agree that they deserve National Trade Policy as an NI, as they did have one that specifically control the trade from the spice route and the silk road. It was VERY important and some would even say that the crumbling of that trade is what lead to their demise.

As far as the tribal government is concerned I wanted to argue against it as well, based off the name, until I realized that it was the only way to model their government form in the game. The fact that they were ruled by the most powerful Mamluk, thus having no true form of inheriting the thrown, they have to be a tribal in the game. Its the only way that you can model their instability during succession. Of course IF there are new scopes and triggers and such this might be able to be changed. If you could mod that this nation never has a inheritance, thus always giving them a succession crisis, then maybe it would work to make them something else. Of course the issue with that would be the RM leading to PUs and such all the time, so maybe that wouldn't work.

Anyway, as the engine sits there is no other way to model the Mamluks at this time. I would agree that they should be a trader nation that never really gets their affairs in order for succession but the game just can't do that. So you get what we have, which is the best way to model it. Of course another way to model it would be to create a trade based tribal government in a mod as well.

 

[BritNavFan]

You can mod them so they are a republic, perhaps with elections only when the ruler dies and succession crises when the ruler dies.

You can also mod monarchies without royal marriages.

You can mod the game to give any type of government succession crises, or make succession crises dependent on government tech, or make them dependent on anything else at all for that matter.

There are many options.

 

[Erispoe]

Yes, they had a lot of infighting... but so did the Ottomans, so did the English (Wars of the Roses), etc. etc. etc. Really, most 15th-century governments should have a chance of succession disputes. I don't think that should make them "tribal".

In this countries, pretenders had a strong legitimate claim. Governors or counts didn't try to catch the title of their kings. They tried only to control the effect power, not to overthrow the ruler
During the mastership of these former slaves, pretenders rose among the emirs as soon as they were stronger than the ruler. Some weak sultan kept the throne because of the infighting of powerful emirs, but it happened a couple of time. That's why they have a tribal government.

 

[Trin Tragula]

Succession wars where extremely common in the mughal and persian empires and I don't think anybody would argue that they where tribal (or rather, they did start out that way but their respective states where not tribal in the eu3 sense later on). In the mughal empire atleast the oldest sons as a rule would revolt against their father when he was getting old and fight him, as well as eachother for the throne.
Foreign inheritances however seem extremely unlikely for the eastern monarchies as they often had 60 - 80 sons with their many wives. There where plenty of successors, they almost allways fought eachother (and their fathers) for the throne however.

If the above empires aren't tribal in eu3 I don't see why the mamluks should be (and if they are then atleast they shouldn't get the horde version of tribalism as they where not bent on expansion but rather the control of the trade flow). This control was in fact the very thing the existence of their state rested on.

Ideally I would love for internal succession struggles to be more common in muslim and hindu empires however and for foreign inheritances to be much less likely.

 

[Lanassa]

Well... I was giving the NI concept some thought as well, and was prepared to suggest that we give them the NI for increased Army Tradition from battles. My rationale for this choice is because their victory over the Mongols at the battle of Ayn Jalut(mid 1200s) was *immensely* important to their spiritual and political prestige.

True, but EUIII doesn't start in the 1200s. 'Ayn Jalut had long since stopped being a touchstone of any import by 1399.