on al-Andalus and Titles

[Gwyn ap Nud]

Can you not differentiate between dependent and independent rulers using the Petty King mechanic?

 

[Cardinal Sin]

Actually, I am not a big fan of the designation sheikh for a pure administrator holding an iqta.

I would suggest the following appellations:

Emperor - Caliph. However, this might cause confusion as to who is head of Sunnitism and Shiitism. Perhaps in Islam the imperial rank should only be attainable by those that have actual caliphates?

King - Malik - for viceroys Sultan.

Duke - Emir

Count - for independent counts sheikh; for dependent counts wali. Hakim is also a possibilty

Baron - Dihqan EDIT: or perhaps even better, qaid

Mayor - Rais, or alternatively qadi

 

[elvain]

frankly, I can't say.

I don't even remember the last time I played the game. If there is any new mechanic from CM (except the tribal settlements), I have most probably missed it.

 

[ekorovin]

Ok, what about Ibadi imams? As far as I know they aren't really connected with mystic knowledge and more with a temporal authority? Also, should they be elective or inheritable? Because from the few examples I know about (and I'm very shallow), election weren't really a case in Rustamid state. I don't know much about Oman also, but it seems elections were purely decorative there too?

 

[Auvar]

I strongly recommend that you stay away from using "Caliph" to refer to non-religious titles. That title already has a role as an indicator of who heads a branch of the Muslim faith (aside from some "Sheikhdom" titles for a few heresies). If you made emperors Caliphs, you set up the possibility of a (imperial) Caliph having a (religious) Caliph as a vassal, which would be rather terrible.

If there's really nothing good to make into an imperial title, then you could always just keep the title the same as the king title (Malik, etc.). After all, there are already "kings" and "petty kings" at duke tier, and as I recall SWMH has German stem duchies at king tier that still title their rulers "Duke" (well, Herzog, but you get the idea). That's not a great solution, but it's certainly better than either calling everyone "Caliph" or barring imperial titles to non-caliph Muslims just because the terminology isn't perfect.

 

[Cardinal Sin]

What about Malik al-Amlak, in analogy to Shahanshah? Too sinister?

 

[CrackdToothGrin]

I don't know much about Oman also, but it seems elections were purely decorative there too?

Nope. Not really. The elections were based on the concept of the Imam being Shari or Dafi'i. A Shari Imam would be the type of person to "fight until the end" or be a zealot. He would be elected on the basis of him standing up to outside aggression to the religion, and to fight until death. The Dafi'i would be the opposite: He would be expected to rule the country, but lacked the integrity to keep office in the face of destruction. It was better to have a Shari Imam, obviously. A really charismatic individual could be proclaimed Shari, and the designation carried a lot of prestige, even if the person turned out to be a coward. And on the reverse, a Dafi'i Imam would be known as lesser, even if they did a really good job (like al-Hawari bin Matraf from the Hadani) and should deserve better.

The Azd 'Uman who controlled the Trucial littoral were known as "Julanda" by the Sassanians, who gave them that honorific and autonomy in exchange for tax revenue. Eventually, Islam came, yadda yadda, and what you have, at least in the start date for CM, is the last Azd 'Uman/Julanda, and then most of rulers being from the Yahmadi and Kharusi dynasties. Now, the Yahmad-Kharusi were able to constantly secure that election because they had the support of the most powerful military family in Oman, the Banu Sama. But, despite that control, and the fact they secured the elections for themselves partially under the threat of military force, they still did lose out on a few of the elections to the Kindi and Hadani. So, the same "family" (really, two larger tribal federations, the Yahmadi and the Kharusi) were at each other's throats the whole time. There was a real dynamic of electoral drama between the families, as each tried to gather populist support before the elections, which were a huge event. Then there's also the conflict of the Adnani v. Sahtani, or the City vs. Desert Arabs that underscored the whole thing as well.

Truth be told a crapload of the Omani rulers were overthrown. And an even larger amount of them died in office from illness and old age. The position favored experienced men, regardless of whether they were independent, or under the 'Abbasids, the Qarmatians, or the Seljuks.

Eventually, however, the rulership would switch to hereditary. There aren't a lot, or really any, records as to when that happened. But by the time we hit the 1400s, the Banu Nabhani are in control. We do know, however, that the Banu Nabhani got their start from "The Black Fort" or "al-Aswad" in the as-Sirr region of Makniyat somewhere in the beginning of the 1000s under al-Fallah bin al-Mushin Banu Nabhani. His son, 'Arar bin al-Fallah Banu Nabhani, succeeded him in 1026 and through him, begins to exercise considerable political power off of the basis of trade revenue gained from cross-Indian sea trade. Somewhere in the middle of the Seljukid "control" they take over. Considering the Omani were very isolationist in their mountain strongholds, most works I've seen have the Nabhani, with Seljukid backing, getting enough clout and power to force elections to the Imamate and transform to Primogeniture somewhere in the 13-14th Century.

 

[Thure]

- 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.

So wali would work very well for viceroy dukes, right...?

 

[elvain]

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.

It seems that I missed this post when first replying this thread.

The cultural split of Berbers in particular is really a complex one and it is designed for tools/mechanics which are not incorporated yet at all. As mentioned in the first part, having the caliphs as Badawi is incorrect, but I won't get it fixed until I move on to Arabia overhaul (being too busy with Persia, Turkestan and partly India).
- For some of the Andalusian Berbers it is known to which branch they belonged. The others should most probably be Aznata/Zanata, who seem to leave deepest traces in Spanish Christian reflections of muslim presence. This could be supported by the fact that if some Andalusian Berber dynasty's branch is known, it is Sanhaja/Znaga.

The Tagelmust are the Black/veiled Sanhaja and the main reason for them to be included was to tell these nomadic and black Sanhaja from white and sedentary Sanhaja of Maghreb. The name Tagelmust means veiled, and they should have different cultural units etc. but not all of it is done as it should be.

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).

Some of the Almohads being Maghrebi - it must have been overlooked. They should be Imesmudan(Masmuda) with possibly some of them being Aznata.

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).

I'm not sure if I understand what you mean. Maybe some pictures might help?

 

[Gwyn ap Nud]

Yeah, I later realized what the Tagelmust represented... Might I suggest they be called Kel Tagelmust (The Veiled People), mirroring how the Saharan Tuareg are named?

I'll mock up a map in a minute.

Spoiler

There we go!

 

[elvain]

Yeah, I later realized what the Tagelmust represented... Might I suggest they be called Kel Tagelmust (The Veiled People), mirroring how the Saharan Tuareg are named?

I'll mock up a map in a minute.

Spoiler

There we go!

Thanks.
It both looks reasonable. I thought about giving Masmuda some more space. I tried to base the distribution of tribes on hard data about which tribe belonged to which confederation. Sometimes they shared/fought for the regions, sometimes it is unclear, and then having some kind of territorial consistency was also taken into consideration, which was particulary the case of the coast north of Rif mountains. The closest hard data I had was the Sanhaja living in the mountains just above the coast, so I gave them the coast.
But if you have data that prove it wrong, there's no problem to change it.

 

[elvain]

I strongly recommend that you stay away from using "Caliph" to refer to non-religious titles. That title already has a role as an indicator of who heads a branch of the Muslim faith (aside from some "Sheikhdom" titles for a few heresies). If you made emperors Caliphs, you set up the possibility of a (imperial) Caliph having a (religious) Caliph as a vassal, which would be rather terrible.

If there's really nothing good to make into an imperial title, then you could always just keep the title the same as the king title (Malik, etc.). After all, there are already "kings" and "petty kings" at duke tier, and as I recall SWMH has German stem duchies at king tier that still title their rulers "Duke" (well, Herzog, but you get the idea). That's not a great solution, but it's certainly better than either calling everyone "Caliph" or barring imperial titles to non-caliph Muslims just because the terminology isn't perfect.

If only it was so easy.
If I make it this way, I'm not sure if it wouldn't mean that the Abbasid caliphs would end up being maliks, which is much more ridicuous than having a potential super-powerful Arab empire to claim the title caliph even though it doesn't hold religious authority. Unfortunately with culturaly based titles there's nothing much we could chose.

What about Malik al-Amlak, in analogy to Shahanshah? Too sinister?

I liked the proposal you made above, except that I'd switch Sultan and Malik so that Sultan is independent, while Malik should go for viceroys.

Also, I think I could raise the question here.
I'm facing rather complex problem with Persian pre-muslim and muslim-era titles.
It looks ridiculous to have muslim "satraps" or other pre-islamic Persians, but so does it having Karen emirs. The only solution would be to make cultural division of Persians even more messy and complex than it will be :/

 

[Gwyn ap Nud]

Thanks.
It both looks reasonable. I thought about giving Masmuda some more space. I tried to base the distribution of tribes on hard data about which tribe belonged to which confederation. Sometimes they shared/fought for the regions, sometimes it is unclear, and then having some kind of territorial consistency was also taken into consideration, which was particulary the case of the coast north of Rif mountains. The closest hard data I had was the Sanhaja living in the mountains just above the coast, so I gave them the coast.
But if you have data that prove it wrong, there's no problem to change it.

I'll have to go back over my notes, but I believe it was in Henri Terasse's '52 History of Morocco, pages 19-21 where he outlines where the various tribes lived.

Here are some of my notes from that source on the topic:
The Masmuda tribe were the most numerous (source: al-Bekri), in the Atlantic plains and the mountains. 4 major groups: Chomara in the Straights, Jebel and Riff Mountains, Berghwata between Bu-Regreg and the Umber-Rbia, Dukkala south of the Umber-Rbia, and Gregraga on the Tensift, while the Cheuh Berbers lived in the Grand and Anti-Atlas ranges.
The Senhaja are mainly in the Algerian Tell and Kabulia, and also the southern group that you have as a separate cultural group. The Moroccan group are in the Middle Atlas from south of Taza to Beni-Mellal, with another group in the southern flank of the Grand Atlas. Another large group settled part of the Rif.
Lastly, the Zenata focused in Tlemcen and Tiaret, and came into Morocco in waves. The first wave was the 8thC Miknasa, who settled in the east and slowly filtered north. The second wave was the 10th century Banu Ifren and Maghrawa. The last was the 12th century Banu Ouasin, including hte Banu Marin.

According to Terrasse... I actually misremembered and mislabelled my map, I probably should have put the Masmuda/Imesmuden in the northern coastal plains, not the Zenata/Aznata.

However, it's not quite HARD data...

 

[elvain]

That actually is quite hard data, well, there is not many really harder than this

 

[Gwyn ap Nud]

That actually is quite hard data, well, there is not many really harder than this

Oh, thank you!

If I have the time tonight I may mock up a better map based more concretely on the areas he gave...

Spoiler

So this is based on the geographic locations Terrasse and al-Bekri give. I give the names of specific Masmuda tribes (Chomara, Berghwata, etc), but only the general names of the other groupings (Aznata, Senhaja). It gives a concrete northern border for the Berghwata Masmuda, the Bou-Regreg river, but no idea who lives between the Bou-Regreg and the Chomara Masmuda of the straights. It is clear from this, however, that the Masmuda lived MUCH more north than currently in the game.
The Southern border is defined by the Grand and Anti-Atlas mountain ranges, which is pretty much as it is in the game. So regarding my map a few posts above, the Znaga coastal region I said should be Aznata on the Mediterranean, should really be Masmuda, and the main Masmuda area should be extended one province north... I'll check what the province name is, but it's the one that is the duchy capital within al-Murabitun.

The Senhaja/Znaga have the Rif mountainous regions and the northern half of the Middle Atlas range, but perhaps they should be given the southern half of the MIddle Atlas as well, I will check the province name again.

edit: ok, got my provinces together.

Final suggestion: Marrakech, Asfi, Ribat and Nakur to the Imesmuden, Fes to the Znaga, Sala to one or the other. Yes, this kicks most of the Aznata out of Morocco, but Terrasse has them mostly as migrant overlords, not as settled people, except in Sijilmasa.

To be fair, Terrasse does, I think, have a bit of a pro-Masmuda bias. As a Frenchman in Algeria pre-independence, he was part of the colonial project, and described the Masmuda as more... 'civilized', for lack of a better word. He liked that they were settled, not migratory, and considered them the natural natives of Morocco. I do think that his descriptions of where they lived are, on the most part, believable, though.

 

[elvain]

Oh, thank you!

If I have the time tonight I may mock up a better map based more concretely on the areas he gave...

Spoiler

...

Thanks a lot yet again!

There is one problem I see there: The Ghomara whom you, based on Terrasse, put under the Masmuda are sometimes (and according to my notes and google more often) mentioned among Sanhaja, which is perhaps the reason why I gave the coast to the Sanhaja.

As for not having Zanata in Morocco at all - I think it would actualy be little inacurate. The fact that they were of a nomadic nature shouldn't disqualify them from owning provinces, especially when we know that they have lived in the region, and not always only as overlords. For instance, in my notes* I have Sala and Fes being mentioned as land of the Iforaces (Beni Ifuren) who were Zanata. Fes province in general is naturaly quite large and its part may have been owned by various tribes as well as the city did allow various tribes live there and in its vicinity, but there really should be some Zanata in Maghreb al-Aqsa.

* which unfortunately don't always have quotations to the source.

To be fair, Terrasse does, I think, have a bit of a pro-Masmuda bias. As a Frenchman in Algeria pre-independence, he was part of the colonial project, and described the Masmuda as more... 'civilized', for lack of a better word. He liked that they were settled, not migratory, and considered them the natural natives of Morocco. I do think that his descriptions of where they lived are, on the most part, believable, though.

The bias is understandable, but it has some reason. Masmuda certainly were much omre of a settled tribe, definitely when compared to Zanata (Aznata), but also to some Sanhaja (The Veiled especially). I on the other hand do confess that I have small bias towards the various Sanhaja tribes, maybe because some of them are so different from others

 

[Gwyn ap Nud]

My sources didn't really speak much about exactly when the Zenata moved into Morocco, Terrasse really didn't seem to like them much, but wiki at least says the Banu Ifran only moved into Sala in the 10th century...

Fes and Marrakech are both very large provinces, to be completely honest. When I was parcelling out provinces, I was giving Fes to the Sanhaja because of the Middle Atlas in the eastern part of the province, even though that completely ignores who was settling the plateau and city itself. Ideally, I would split Fes province, but yeah.

I guess Sala and Fes can be given to the Zenata. Regarding the Chomara/Ghomara, Wiki quotes the Encyclopedie Berbere as saying they were originally Masmuda, but the wiki page on their language says it's closest to a Senhaja Riffian dialect. I would say this is the cause for the confusion, because of later becoming closer to the Senhaja then their original Masmuda roots.

 

[elvain]

Fes and Marrakech are both very large provinces, to be completely honest. When I was parcelling out provinces, I was giving Fes to the Sanhaja because of the Middle Atlas in the eastern part of the province, even though that completely ignores who was settling the plateau and city itself. Ideally, I would split Fes province, but yeah.

I guess Sala and Fes can be given to the Zenata. Regarding the Chomara/Ghomara, Wiki quotes the Encyclopedie Berbere as saying they were originally Masmuda, but the wiki page on their language says it's closest to a Senhaja Riffian dialect. I would say this is the cause for the confusion, because of later becoming closer to the Senhaja then their original Masmuda roots.

Yes, the provinces are large, especialy Fes, but I'm not sure about splitting it...

As for Ghomara - I can't really say. I'm now deep in another research and don't really want to get disturbed by searching for them (because I know myself and it would mean few days reading-re-reading various sources and jumping back into the Berber stuff, which is not desired now when I want to finnish Persia), but one thing I am more than 100% sure - by no means I would have ever prefer a Wiki information over some other scholarly source. So their affiliation to Sanhaja certainly doesn't come only from Wikipedia. But I apologize that I can't give anything firmer to support it now. Hopefully later.