on al-Andalus and Titles

[Gwyn ap Nud]

So I've been rereading Philip Hitti's History of the Arabs, and as I always do whenever I read a piece of history that is in any PI game era, I feel the need to check to see how the game fits up against history. And to be honest, it does so pretty well; SWMH portrays the right families as Berber, Arab, or Andalusian (read as Visigothic, I have the Banu Qasi in mind here). (I don't know whether the 1066 Banu dhu al-Nun should be Berber or Andalusi as they are now, but they were originally Berber. ) Where it falls, however, is the naming of the Umayyad titles.

The Kingdom of Andalusia is held, in the history, only by the Umayyads and, near the end, a non-playable other dynasty who they were rivals with. The localization for the title when held by Muslims is "Sultan". My complaint is that this is ahistorical. At no point was there ever a "Sultan" in Muslim Spain. Prior to any start dates (including the Charlemagne date), there were Wali's or Governors. When Abd al-Rahman I took over, there were Amir's. And in between the Old Gods start date and 1066, there were Caliphs. I propose that the Muslim title for the Kingdom of Andalusia be specially localized as "Amir", and that the history be changed so that the primary title was changed to Caliph of Hispania at a certain date, and the Kingdom of Andalusia dissolved or kept within the family.

The only issue with this is most relevant in the Taifa start dates, when Muslim Spain is broken up into rival emirates. For these emirates, the Kingdom of Andalusia is their goal. However, for them to take the title of "Amir" upon gaining the title would be rather unsatisfying, and it would make more sense to, in this ahistorical but plausible case, have them claim the title localized as "Sultan".
How would this work? It would be linked to culture. There were several rival cultures in Muslim Spain. The title can be localized as "Sultan" for the Andalusi (representing initially Mozarabs or Arabized natives, and later also representing nativized Arabs or Berbers) and for all other cultures, and "Amir" for Arabs (Badawi, Mashriqi, Misri, Maghreb).
That said, I believe there should be more count-level Berber (specifically Znaga, which I read as representing more Arabized Berbers? I'm not entirely sure on the difference between Znaga and Azhnata cultures unless the Znaga are arabized and the Azhnata are not) rulers in Andalusia in the 867 start. Berber-Arab strife was prolific into to the Taifa period, and there's no representation of that now. Count-level Berbers in poorer areas ruling over Andalusi provinces ruled over by Badawi or Mashriqi rulers (many of the "Arabs" in this conflict were in fact Arabized Syrians) would better represent the conflict than simply Badawi ruling over Andalusi.

Edit: Ignore what I said about Berbers, I talk more about Berbers in my second post.

 

[Gwyn ap Nud]

A second thought is when is it appropriate to change the cultures of a ruler? For example, the Caliphs are consistantly portrayed as "Badawi", which has implications of similarity to the tribal Arabian Peninsular cultures, whereas the later Umayyad (including Abd al-Rahman and his descendents) and mid-to-late Abbasids (including most playable ones) were fairly solidly urban. The Umayyads drew their power base not from the Bedouin tribes but from urbanized Syrians, and should maybe be Mashriqi in culture instead to represent this. The Abbasids are more questionable in what culture they really should fall into. While certainly originally Badawi, they spent almost all of their time for centuries in the province of Iraq, which is Persian and Mashriqi, or elsewhere in Persia (especially the more Eastern bits). They certainly are not Persian, but could they be Mashriqi instead of Badawi?

Regarding Berbers, I had a fun time trying to piece together the reality of the Berber cultures in SWMH. There are 4 main Berber groups in real life, which correspond roughly with 4 of the 5 North African cultures in SWMH. The first are the Tuaregs, in-game as the Kel Tamashek. The second are the Masmuda, in-game as the Imesmudan. The third is the Zenata, in-game as the Aznata. The last is the Sanhaja, in-game as the Znaga. The Tagelmust in-game seem to represent black Sanhaja/Znaga tribes.

Which of the 3 main Berber groups (Imesmudan, Aznata, Znaga) would be the ones in Andalusia isn't documented.

The nationality of the Almoravids, Marinids, Zirids, Hammadids, and Almohads are. The Almoravids are in fact the main reason why the Tagelmust are separate: the Almoravids were Znaga rulers from southern Mauretania who were black of skin. (In fact, there is still a Berber language spoken in that area called "Zenaga", so my main question with the Tagelmust is where the name comes from...)

The Marinids (Aznata), Zirids, and Hammadids (Both Znaga) are all solidly one culture, but the Almohads are a bit more confusing. They were originally Aznata, but their base of power and adopted culture were the Imesmudan. SWMH represents this by having the first Almohad ruler as Aznata, and most of the following Imesmudan. Wierdly, however, quite a few Almohads in the history files are Maghreb in culture, alternating with Imesmudan ones. Is there a reason for this that I haven't found? It seems to me that it would make more sense for them to be Aznata for one or two more rulers and then solidly be Imesmudan after that.

Lastly, I think that the culture borders of the tribes are slightly off in Morocco. The cultural capital of the Masmuda was Aghmat, which is currently a province to the north of them. I think that the provinces between the Masmuda and the Moroccan Znaga should be split between the two, and that in return the Aznata recieve the very northern coast of Morocco between Ceuta and the Algerian Maghreb provinces. (I'll find the maps for this later).

 

[Duckett]

I'd be interested in seeing some of your suggestions implemented Gwyn, you seem to know what you're talking about.

 

[Ecnahc]

Possibly post this in the SWMH thread for a quicker response.

 

[theKing1988]

Possibly post this in the SWMH thread for a quicker response.

Don't worry about it. I have seen it and if Elvain misses it when his schedule clears up a bit again and he has more time for modding i will point this out to him. The reason why the SWMH team is a bit more quiet than usual lately is because they are very busy with real life. I don't have enough knowledge about the Cultural setup of Arab Spain and Berber North Africa to judge the changes that Gwyn is suggesting so i'll leave that to Elvain.

 

[CrackdToothGrin]

The first usage of "Sultan" was Mahmud of Ghazni, when he adopted the role of "Protector" over the 'Abbasid Caliph and formalized the separation of former's spiritual and temporal power. This was preceded a bit by jurists like al-Mawardi, who believed in a "government through usurpation" wherein the temporal power would be wrested by a worthy challenger and the authority for the process conferred by the Caliph, essentially a legalization of the Caliph as a religious figurehead instead of the overall commander. This took hold in and around Mesopotamia and Iran throughout the 10th and 11th Centuries, and the reduction of the Caliph to figurehead status was really cemented once the Ghaznavids went full-on. This same process was inherited by the Buwayhids and Seljuks, until the Mongols essentially eradicated the Caliphate.

Long story short: Nobody should be called "Sultan" until someone wrests temporal control from the Caliph. Sultan itself derives from "power" or "authority" (Sultah) and is the realization of an 11th Century jurisprudence movement made de facto.

 

[ekorovin]

That talk about Muslim titles made me wonder, how about giving non-Muslim Arabs the title of "Malik", since "sultan" clearly doesn't work for them. I suppose Muslims can be known as maliks too, under some circumstances.

 

[Gwyn ap Nud]

CrackdToothGrin is right. In light of that, maybe most King-level titles should be called "Amir", and independent Duchy-level as well, with Sheikh used for vassal duchies? I can find only one example of "Malik" used to refer to a Muslim ruler in the period, which is the Nabhani rulers of Oman in the 12th century.

Unfortunately, the nature of medieval Islamic political theory makes this very hard. Prior to the movement CrackdToothGrin talks about, there theoretically WAS no political power other than the Caliph. Islam was theoretically united under the Caliph in the Dar al-Harb, and internal squabbles was dealt with through the Shari'a law. Shari'a didn't allow for multiple Muslim states. I wrote a paper once arguing that one could technically use loopholes in the laws of international relations in Shari'a to create something very similar to independent Muslim states with peaceful relations, but it involved a whole pile of caveats and loopholes.

 

[ekorovin]

CrackdToothGrin is right. In light of that, maybe most King-level titles should be called "Amir", and independent Duchy-level as well, with Sheikh used for vassal duchies? I can find only one example of "Malik" used to refer to a Muslim ruler in the period, which is the Nabhani rulers of Oman in the 12th century.

I specifically advocated for using "malik" for non-Muslim Arab rulers, who aren't that abundant in a time period OTL, but frequently pop up in game. The fact that there's even precedent for Muslim rulers being called that makes my point even stronger

I recall reading that post-Ummayad Islamic historiography used to call Ummayads "maliks", to stress their lack of rights to Caliphate and overall wickedness (from good pro-Abbasid point of view, of course). Seeing how being sultan required a special relation with caliphal authority, calling independent Arab rulers "maliks" may be called for even for Muslims.

 

[deezee]

There are a lot of Duke-tier "counts", right? Like the County of Barcelona or Toulose or Sicily.

Maybe one way it could be done is the Sultanate of Andalusia can instead be a King-level "emirate", which would create a Banu Umayya Emirate that matches their historical title of Emir of Cordoba; if there was also a system for modelling rival caliphal claims (which ideally there would be, but it sounds difficult and regardless is the topic of another discussion) this would enable us to model their historic title transition from Emir of Cordoba to Caliph of Cordoba. Although it would raise the problem of an Emir ruling over lots of small emirs.

On a semi-related note, it might be cool if, while Andalusian Duke-tier independent rulers retained the title of Emirate, their realms became "Taifas", to match the historical situation of the historical Taifas being ruled by various Emirs.

 

[Gwyn ap Nud]

Malik for non-Muslim Arabs would work perfectly, you're right, sorry.

I don't think you can have an "Amir" under an "Amir"... "Wali" is like "governor", which might work.

Taifa was an adjective, I think... it means "faction", "sect", "party" (in the sense of political party, modernly called "hizb" aka "Hizbollah = hizb Allah, party of God"). It wasn't so much a name of their lands or governance as a description to point out how they were "petty kings", or petty emirs.

I do think that Amir should be the default king-level title, and independent Duchies should be Petty Amirs, with their default title being Sheikh for feudal realms and Wali for vicedoms? Count-level people having no title, or possibly Sheikh title. Maybe Wali just generally as the Viceroy title.

Maybe Sultan would be the Emperor-level title, with a special Caliph title given out by event?

So it would be:
Emperor: Sultan
King: Amir
Viceroy King: Wali
Duke: Sheikh
Viceroy Duke: Wali
Petty King Duke: Amir
Count: no title? Sheikh again?
With Caliph as a special title that overrides titles? Can that be done? Otherwise have Caliph be Emperor level.

Then the decision for the Umayyads to become Caliph would maybe even be that: a decision in-game. Maybe requiring a Shi'ite Caliph to emerge, that was the historical context...

 

[CrackdToothGrin]

Depending on how accurate you want to be... Wāli and Hakim can both be used for gubernatorial positions. The former is derived from Wali (and from Walayah) and indicates control over another, while the latter is basically "appointed" or "judge" or, more recently, a generic term for a healer or a wise man. Sheikh is a noble title, an honorific granted on birth, which is functionally independent of political office that is used to separate royalty from non-royalty, or in some cases as a generic term for "elder" or its equivalent. Malik is king, although others are right in that during the timeframe, really only the later Nabhani rulers used it specifically.

Basically, you're left with Amir, Sultan, and Caliph. Obviously Caliph would be a person attempting to lead the 'Ummah on at least an authoritative spiritual level, and Sultan would only be appropriate once the Caliph loses the control of temporal power. So... It essentially leaves you with Amir for almost all designations. That's also what the historians generally called other rulers, excepting the Turkish ones. If you read, for instance, anything by Ibn al-Athir you will see that he calls everyone Amir when he's not using Turkish titles.

Ninja Edit: I would like to point out that rulers used Amir partially because of it's connotation with "first among equals" in the old egalitarian sense of Arabian tribal hierarchies where the leader was far more familiar. So, Amir has a sense of nostalgia for the "close knit circle" of leaders in the early days of Islam, and when rendered into Greek it became known as their equivalent of "First Among the Counselors." There were some attempts to raise above the status of Amir, which carries with it a history of subordination to the Caliph, by self-styling as Malik, although these attempts were not usually successful.

 

[deezee]

Depending on how accurate you want to be... Wāli and Hakim can both be used for gubernatorial positions. The former is derived from Wali (and from Walayah) and indicates control over another, while the latter is basically "appointed" or "judge" or, more recently, a generic term for a healer or a wise man. Sheikh is a noble title, an honorific granted on birth, which is functionally independent of political office that is used to separate royalty from non-royalty, or in some cases as a generic term for "elder" or its equivalent. Malik is king, although others are right in that during the timeframe, really only the later Nabhani rulers used it specifically.

Basically, you're left with Amir, Sultan, and Caliph. Obviously Caliph would be a person attempting to lead the 'Ummah on at least an authoritative spiritual level, and Sultan would only be appropriate once the Caliph loses the control of temporal power. So... It essentially leaves you with Amir for almost all designations. That's also what the historians generally called other rulers, excepting the Turkish ones. If you read, for instance, anything by Ibn al-Athir you will see that he calls everyone Amir when he's not using Turkish titles.

Ninja Edit: I would like to point out that rulers used Amir partially because of it's connotation with "first among equals" in the old egalitarian sense of Arabian tribal hierarchies where the leader was far more familiar. So, Amir has a sense of nostalgia for the "close knit circle" of leaders in the early days of Islam, and when rendered into Greek it became known as their equivalent of "First Among the Counselors." There were some attempts to raise above the status of Amir, which carries with it a history of subordination to the Caliph, by self-styling as Malik, although these attempts were not usually successful.

Yeah, IMO, it might be acceptable to call people "Sultans" or "Shiekhs" in ways that are ahistorical simply to avoid everybody and their uncle being an Amir. That's kind of a subjective issue thought.

 

[Cardinal Sin]

What about the Buyid designation "Amir al-Umura" for king-tier rulers? I know that was a title bestowed on them by the Abbasids as well, but has the sort of implication of being an emir that rules over other emirs (emir of emirs) and is not quite as obviously derived from caliphal rule as "sultan".

Naming Muslim rulers is quite problematic unfortunately, especially because eversy realm had different designations The medieval Islamic empire I am most knowledgable about, the Fatimids, had a caliph, emirs, and walis... and that was pretty much it, apart from some court titles and special honours.

Actually, isn't malik a step higher than sultan? I think I remember the kings of Egypt and Morocco took on that title because it was more prestigious than sultan.

 

[Gwyn ap Nud]

They may have taken it because it was the term used for the then more prestigious European monarchs in Arabic usage. Sultans were seen to be linked with Islam and tradition and the intellectual and cultural poverty that was linked with those ideas then, while the enlightened and powerful "Maliks" of Germany and France and Britain were the model of the perfect state. It had less to do with the word itself and more to do with how the word was used previously.

Etymologically, the words are fairly different but that difference is on the whole meaningless. Malik literally means "owner". If I wanted to say "He is the owner of the beer company", I would say "Hua malik sharika al-bira". Sultan comes from the word meaning "power", "authority". Similar to how we use "the authorities", in Arabic one says "al-Sultat". Caliph, or Khalifa in Arabic, means "successor" or "regent". Emir means "commander". Wali mean "custodian" or "guardian"; the father has legal control over his progeny, which is termed "wilaya" and usually translated as "guardianship". Sheikh means something like "old man".

It's only when you get to Sheikh, Emir, and Wali does the difference in etymology and root actually take meaning. The Sheikh is the eldest and wisest of his tribe, the Wali is a more civil guardian role, the Emir is a more military commander role.

 

[CrackdToothGrin]

It's only when you get to Sheikh, Emir, and Wali does the difference in etymology and root actually take meaning. The Sheikh is the eldest and wisest of his tribe, the Wali is a more civil guardian role, the Emir is a more military commander role.

Exactly. Amir was being used, the same as Wāli, for various rulers throughout the Caliphate. Some were military in nature, watching over the ajnad, and others were more tax-oriented, like the appointed 'awliya in Oman, in between their bouts of independence against Baghdad or Qarmatian rule.

Occasionally, someone would try and self-style as Malik, or, if within the Persian sphere of influence, Shah or Shahanshah. But, by the time the Caliphate is at the point where people are powerful enough to break away, there are already competing Caliphates and independent Emirates, and then Ghaznavids, Buwayhids, and then Seljuks. There really doesn't exist, in our timeline, a strong example of a functional Islamic state that doesn't use existing conventions we've already covered. Although, and I can't believe I forgot it earlier, but the Ayyubids and Mamluks used Malik in addition to Amir and Sultan.

 

[ekorovin]

So with Ayyubids and Mamlukes as precedent, perhaps we can use this system: Sultan- emperor, Malik - king, Amir - duke, Sheikh- count, with wali for governors and hakim for republican titles?
I have to admit, I like how the word "Malik" sounds.

Don't forget that we also need to shoehorn "Imam" for Shia and Ibadis into the system.

 

[Gwyn ap Nud]

Did they? Maybe informally, but Salah al-Din was named "Sultan of Egypt and Syria" by the Abbasid Caliph. The Mamluks as well were formally "Sultans" as well. A few people did use it as their laqab, their official nickname, but not as a title.

Maybe we can use Malik for the a-historical titles, but I'd be wary of using it for the Umayyads as in my original post, or other rulers who historically used other titles...

I can go through a list of various rulers who held certain titles over history to find what their titles historically were, which would be the title of the person who should hold that title.

Imam for Shi'a isn't a LEVEL of title, but is specific to the descendent of 'Ali who inherited his deep and sometimes esoteric mystic knowledge of the correct interpretation of the Qur'an. That's why the "Shi'i uprising" events are a bit iffy; the game doesn't track which lines actually have claims to the Imamate, even when (as in 867) both the 12er and Ismaili lines exist. During game-time, the 12ers respected the quietist Imam who in-game is a baron-level Wali in Medina or Mecca (can't remember) and his son, the next Imam, is in the Fatimid court for some reason. As for the Ismailis (there seems to be no real difference in-game between Shi'a groups), the game considers the Fatimid claim to be the Imam legitimate (at least in their line of descent, which is doubtful but their descendents are still considered direct today), but Ismailis at the time were underground, gathering strength around an Imam who was alive and on Earth, but was hidden for his safety, and the Fatimids portrayed themselves as his vizier of a kind.

The Shi'a Uprisings could represent the Zaydis, who were the most populous group of Shi'is, as the Zaydi Imam is any descendent of 'Ali who is willing to 'fight the good fight' as it were, but the Shi'a Pretender in-game is a kid, and the Zaydi's would never follow someone who hasn't proven themselves...
But properly that's an issue that should be brought to VIET.

 

[CrackdToothGrin]

Did they? Maybe informally, but Salah al-Din was named "Sultan of Egypt and Syria" by the Abbasid Caliph. The Mamluks as well were formally "Sultans" as well. A few people did use it as their laqab, their official nickname, but not as a title.

Yeah. Saladin used "Malik an-Nasur Yusuf Ayyub" as his title on his first minted coins.

But, that's beside the point. I wasn't making a strong case for anyone using Malik as a default king-tier title. I could see the case being made for maybe a petty king duke tier being called Malik, since those individuals who wanted to raise themselves above the title of Amir might call themselves Malik or Shah/Shahanshah (Case in point, some of the Buwayhids tried this).

Generally speaking, most everyone nominally acknowledged the Caliph, and the titles reflected this relationship, even if the facts on the ground over the dichotomy between spiritual and temporal concerns did not.

 

[elvain]

Great discussion, guys!

This is exactly something I wanted to deal somehow, but still wasn't sure how.

The main issue is that we need to convert a totally chaotic titular "system" with dual civil (wali) and military/political (amir) administration with only very few titles into a systematic hierarchy of titles.

The point that the title sultan has never been used west of Egypt and even in Egypt it wasn't ever used before Saladin, and even in Persia this title wasn't used before Mahmud of Ghazna.
Anyway, a discussion on general muslim titles is one great and important thing, but speaking of CK2 titles system, we should consider how the game works and that we can have different titles for different cultures. On one hand it makes thing easier as we can adapt titles to particular situation of each region, on the other hand it still doesn't solve the problem we have with the general lack of titles we can use.

Generally when speaking strictly about the Arabs, I believe the ideal thing would be:
caliph/khalifa = emperor
malik = king
amir = duke
sheikh = count
- then we have a wali, who represents the civil governor, who would deserve to be at duke and/or count level. But unfortunately we can't have different titles for dependent and independent rulers and thus we need to have distinction between independent amirs who would deserve to be king-tier ones and amirs/walis who should both be at duke-tier when dependent on amirs/sultans/caliphs.

For the Mashriqi culture it could work that the malik or caliph/khalifa is replaced with sultan.

As for Amir al-Umara - I don't really support this title to be used outside Persia, where this kind of titles was traditional. OTOH, this title was also one of titles used by the caliphs, so I don't think it should be used for normal rulers.
We may try to have various culture based titles for different titles (for instance an Arab ruling over k_persia may have used title Amir al-Umara, while Arab using the same title elswhere would look weird), but I don't think it would work.