Mamluk cores

[Retherz]

Shouldn't the mamluks have far more cores? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahri_dynasty
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe....PNG/400px-Bahri_Dynasty_1250_-_1382_(AD).PNG https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Mamluks1279.png

 

[Utretch]

Well, the Iraqi territories would've been held around 150 years ago, meaning cores would be well expired, and those territories would never have been well integrated or even associated with the Sultanate to the extent that they would deserve cores. On top of this there's disagreeing information on whether the Mamluks or the Mongols actually held dominion over the territories. There's just no real cause for Mamluk cores, much of the land on the map would've been tributary states rather than directly owned territories.

 

[Demetrios]

Shouldn't the mamluks have far more cores? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahri_dynasty
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Bahri_Dynasty_1250_-_1382_(AD).PNG/400px-Bahri_Dynasty_1250_-_1382_(AD).PNG https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Mamluks1279.png

Firstly, the Bahri Dynasty wasn't the one on the throne at the start of EU4, the Burji Dynasty was. Any maps showing the Mameluks during the Bahri dynasty are at least 62 years out of date by the time the game starts.

Secondly, those maps grossly over-estimate the area ruled by the Bahri. They never ruled any further than the northwesternmost part of Mesopotamia, and definitely not down to the Persian Gulf. They also never ruled Sudan south of the Second Cataract. And the Hedjaz was merely a vassal under the Sharifs of Mecca, and not ruled outright.